Tag Archives: History

Getting Hammered Radio – Friday, July 5, 2013



When: Friday, July 5, 2013 at 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Getting Hammered with Steve Hamilton and Stevie J West

Tonight: We’re celebrating our Countries Independence, talking about Egypt, The Zimmerman Trial, and wrapping up the week in the News. While Stevie is doing some wedding stuff (not hers lol) and will join us occasionally, Elisha (@Planet_Rawr) will be co-hosting with Steve for this evening’s show.

So grab a cold one and join us at the bar…it’s Friday Night at Casa de Hammy…and we’re #GettingHammered

As We Approach 237

As we approach Independence Day 2013, this might be a good time to take stock on the American experience: where we are, where we came from, what we are supposed to be and what we have become, collectively, as a country. It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that the United States of America has become something other than what our Founders and Framers would have envisioned. In fact, it could be argued that the “old white guys in wigs” would not only be shocked for what we have become, but for our apathy in allowing our country to become what it is.

Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying:

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.”

Today, the United States federal government is so large and so intrusive that it not only employs 4.4 million people, but holds a national debt of over $16.8 trillion dollars. This does not address a $124.6 trillion unfunded liabilities mandate. These numbers appear shocking because they are shocking. And when one takes into consideration that each year the US federal government operates “in the red,” even though they glean $2.902 trillion in revenue from various sources (individual income tax being the primary source at $1.359 trillion), one can only conclude that the federal government has taken on the role of the arrogant spendthrift, and one that disavows Benjamin Franklin’s sentiment, “When you run in debt; you give to another power over your liberty.”

But perhaps the whole of our modern American experience can be summed up in the end state of this quote by Thomas Jefferson:

“A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering…And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.”

In the formative days of our Great American Experiment, the Founders and Framers set up a federal government limited in its authority and scope. In fact, in the early days of our Republic the federal government operated almost completely on revenues gleaned from tariffs and trade. It wasn’t until the 19th Century that the “income tax” would come to be and even then, until the passage of the 19th Amendment, the constitutionality of the income tax was held in question.

Today, thanks to an inequitable tax system – the Progressive tax system – we have a populace that is purposefully divided into factions: one that pays federal taxes, another that avoids paying federal taxes, and yet another that believes the taxes collected are due them. In a land where everyone is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law (read: government), we have allowed those who we elect to office to literally create a class system, through which they manipulate the citizenry for political gain and the retention of power.

To say that the United States of America was founded on deep-rooted desire for the individual to be free to practice the religion of his or her choosing is to understate the importance of the issue. Truth be told, the issue of religious freedom delivered pilgrims to American shores centuries before. The Founders and Framers, being deeply reverent men – much to the opposite of claims by the secularists of today – understood all too well the importance of not only freedom of religion (the natural law right to worship in the dogma of choice) but the idea of recognizing something larger than self where government was concerned. As our founding documents – the Charters of Freedom – are predicated on the understanding and acknowledgment of Natural Law (the acknowledgement of a Higher Power), it is only the intellectually dishonest who argue religion did not (and does not) play a significant role in the government of our Republic.

To wit, The Declaration of Independence states:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…” (emphasis added)

Yet, today, military chaplains are forbidden from even displaying a Bible on their government issued desks for the ignorance of history served up at the hands of Progressive and secular activists.

Today, because of an activist Judicial Branch (and at the urging of Progressive and secular activists), the innocent notion of a separation of Church and State, which in its original intent was meant to reassure one denomination that another would not be placed above it in an establishment of a “national religion,” i.e. the Church of England, has been grotesquely distorted to require the ever-increasing banishment of all religious symbols from the public square. And at the same time, the federal government – in the form of ever-expanding entitlements – seeks to replace the Creator as the Alpha and the Omega for the American citizenry.

At our country’s inception, the Judiciary – the Judicial Branch and all federal courts in its charge – was to administer federal law in the context of constitutionality. Was it constitutional or what is not? Or was the question reserved for the States and the judiciaries of those States, per the 10th Amendment?

Today, our entire legal system – federal as well as the lessers – is held hostage to a system of precedent law; Stare decisis et non quieta movere, a Latin term meaning “to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed.” This is understood to mean that courts should abide by decided precedent and not disturb settled matters, regardless of whether the decision was born of activism. If the judiciary produced judgments and opinions that had fidelity to the Constitution – as the Constitution mandates, then the notion of stare decisis would be a good thing. But those who serve in the Judiciary are equally subject to human intellectual infirmities as are those who serve in the Executive and Legislative Branches. Truth is, one decision based on ideologically; one activist decision, forever moves law away from the Constitution.

As Steven G. Calabresi, a professor of law at Northwestern University School of Law and a visiting professor at Brown University, opined in a paper titled, Text vs. Precedent in Constitutional Law, published the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy:

“The argument…is that the doctrinalists are wrong in arguing for a strong theory of stare decisis for three reasons. First, there is nothing in the text, history, or original meaning of the Constitution that supports the doctrinalists’ strong theory of stare decisis. Second, the actual practice of the US Supreme Court is to not follow precedent, especially in important cases. In other words, precedent itself counsels against following precedent. And, third, a strong theory of stare decisis is a bad idea for policy reasons…

“Both textualism and originalism supply arguments as to why following precedent is wrong. As for the text, it is striking that there is not a word in the Constitution that says in any way that precedent trumps the text.”

Yet, decisions on issues from voting rights to life-ending procedures, social issues to mandatory health insurance are continuously based on precedent law, or stare decisis. And with each decision that bows to stare decisis, we move further away from fidelity to the Constitution.

At the founding of our nation, our citizenry was comprised on those who wanted the freedom to build, to create, to glean the benefits of their labors based on the effort with which they sought success. Pride was not the product of artificially installed self-esteem, but a humble condition of dignity, arrived at through determination, education – sometimes, or most times autodidactic – and perseverance. The United States was a nation of strong individuals, determined to embrace the freedom – the liberty, that the New World afforded them; a nation of people with a commonality based on self-reliance and a brotherhood born of the love of liberty and justice for all, not just the oligarchic few.

Today, our country has devolved into a socialistic nanny-state, complete with an entitlement faction that will very soon not only outnumber Ayn Rand’s “producers” but a faction that celebrates its gluttony; its piggish appetite for entitlement, even as they scheme to avoid the responsibility of maintaining the Republic; even as they demand more from a government whose seemingly sole purpose is to concoct new ways to extract wealth from those who produce. Today, 47% of the nation’s people do not pay federal income taxes. Today, 23 million households are dependent on food stamps. Today, nearly 49 percent of the citizenry lives in a household where at least one member receives a direct benefit from the federal government.

That those duly elected to office exploit this societal malady for purposes of maintaining power is tantamount to a betrayal of the very principles held by those who gifted us the exquisite beauty of liberty. I wonder, if the Founders and Framers could confront the elitist oligarchs of today’s American ruling class, would they be strong enough to do so with temperance?

On this, the 237th anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence, we would be wise to self-examine our national condition. Do we really want to be a nanny-state? Do we really want to admire a legal system that moves further away for the very basis for our freedom with each decision? Do we really want to support a government that increasingly steals from the producers to give to the dependent class of their own creation, and for purely ideological and politically motivated purposes? Do we want to be a nation that stands arrogantly in its belief that We the People – or They the Government – are the highest power to which we must answer, therefore abandoning our God-given right to acknowledge Natural Law?

In 1964, future president Ronald Reagan gave a speech titled, A Time for Choosing, in which he said:

“We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation.

“They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right….

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

Today, my fellow Americans is Independence Day. Please, think about it.

Moving Left Isn’t Right

Written in a time filled with the gasps and death of the Soviet Union, and its satellites’ declarations of their independence, I found Alvin Rabushka’s “The Failure of Socialism in China” capturing my attention. In it, the author mentions the method that Mao Zedong attempted to use to incite the communist Chinese economy to grow – namely central planning. The author also illustrates why the planning did little to anything at all on its own in the way of economy-building or growth.

As many economists critical of socialist governments point out, central planning heavily relies on a number of measures, so that it can claim to function better than alternative forms of economies. Among the measures are: constant inflows of information to allow tweaking of quotas, difficulties in procuring that data, lack of a labor market, little or no incentives to produce, little or no entrepreneurship, wasted resources, and political interference in the economy. These measures were to blame for the anemia and failures of so many socialist countries in the late 20th century.

While at times, the failed states may have appeared healthy, much of the time it was due to support from other socialist patron states, like the Soviet Union and China. Although the patrons may have propped up the subordinate states, the goods provided were sub-standard quality and in lesser quantity than those produced in the west. Once the patron states collapsed (like the Soviet Union), countries like Cuba found themselves in dire situations.

China was a bit of an anomaly, however. Despite the numerous five-year plans, and massive instruction directed by Mao, the Chinese economy did not really begin to grow until 1979 – after Mao’s death. What finally jump started the Chinese economy, and led to growth never seen before in the period from 1957 until then, were economic reforms, led by Deng Xiaoping.

So, what were these reforms that led to so much growth? Deng modified regulations after he witnessed what occurred in his home province with modified rules. Allowing Chinese peasants more input and freedom in carrying out measures and surpassing their quotas, produced increases in production, foreign investment, and per capita income. How was that possible? What were these “magic” modifications?

Simply, the communist party, and Deng in particular, saw that providing incentives for work led to: harder working peasants, peasants who were more engaged in their work, and peasants who cared more about meeting the quotas and exceeding them. Simply put, the Chinese system changed from the stick as a simple cudgel, to a stick with a carrot on the end of it.

Those who ignore history…

Now, the part that the American government, and Obama and his administration in particular, should pay close attention to, are the measures that Deng found worked to create an energetic and engaged citizenry. Allow the people to strive to meet their potentials. Do not be so unwise to think that a leader, who believes he sits above his people to delegate the actions of those people.

Deng lowered taxes (in some cases on livestock to nothing), set quotas for the citizens (but refused to dictate how they should be met), and retreated from the heavy hand of government, allowing goods/crops produced above the quota to be sold for the peasants’ own income. The land leased to peasants was also made inheritable, building trust in the peasants, that the central planners would not arbitrarily confiscate lands. Even the urban citizens saw benefits – real urban per capita incomes grew by 40%! Overall, the new policies of the central planners in China led to more growth between 1979 and 1985, than the country had seen between 1957 and 1979!

One small group of planners can in no way successfully guide millions of citizens to reach a satisfactory conclusion. The more the leaders attempt to guide the masses, the more the masses will resist, and the heavier the weight of the planners’ guidance will feel to them. It is unfortunate that the current American administration seems to be moving retrograde to successful outcomes. They continue to plan, and guide, and swear that they know how to fix this economy. Despite their protestations, the proof is in the pudding, and the pudding, so far, has been rotten.

Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go

Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson has penned a scathing piece in Newsweek arguing that Obama’s “gotta go.” It won’t be easy for the mainstream press to dismiss Ferguson’s op-ed like they would most others because the messenger happens to be an accomplished historian and can frame America’s decline under Obama in world historical terms.

By now, everyone has heard of historian Niall Ferguson’sSix Killer Apps.” In this presentation, the Harvard professor explains how The West was able to conquer its enemies and ascend to world power. If you haven’t had a chance to view Ferguson’s presentation, do yourself a favor and give it a watch.

It is important for people to note how directly contrary to the historically successful cultural strategies the agenda of Barack Obama and the Democrats runs.

What I propose is that the American left, and by extension its political vehicle the Democrat Party, intentionally embrace the antitheses of what made Western Civilization great, plus two more blights thrown in for good measure: eight killer “Non-Apps,” or “Naps” for short. (Republicans may be guilty of these things to the extent they agree with the left.)

Below is a quick-and-dirty breakdown and a smidgeon of commentary:

1. Competition: a decentralization of political and economic life, which created the launch pad for both nation states and capitalism.

The Democrat Party has built its reputation on the argument that the market is too mean, and if it were not for government we’d all be slaving away in a coal mine somewhere.  On the contrary, it is government, the monopoly of legal coercion, that forces people to labor for subsistence compensation in nations around the world.

From bailouts for too-big-to-fail banks and corporations to green subsidies for shady businesses, the Democrats eschew market accountability any chance they get. Dispensing grants to “non-profits” for everything under the sun, paying hefty wages and pensions to government workers, and pampering unions around the nation, the Democrat Party is the sugar daddy of non-competitive wages and unaccountable labor. In summary, the Democrats’ goal is to centralize complete power and they have no problem using taxpayer money as a political slush fund to do so.

2. Scientific Method: A way of understanding and ultimately changing the natural world, which gave the West (among other things) a major military advantage over the Rest.

Nothing has shown more poignantly that the Democrat Party is completely cynical about abusing science for political gain than so-called “green energy.” From its applause of ethanol subsidies, leading to escalating food prices around the globe, to its attempts to get more than $72 trillion out of a global carbon tax, the left has shown little reverence for science as a method of inquiry.  The left has politicized science and everything else it touches, just like Frankfurt School doyen Theodore Adorno advised the New Left to do in the early 1980s.

3. Property Rights: the rule of law as a means of protecting private owners and peacefully resolving disputes between them, which formed the basis for the most stable form of representative government.

If there is anything the Democrat Party is opposed to it is private property rights. In perfect accordance with the socialist goal of eliminating all notion of private property, the Democrat-led government has eroded all vestige of the legal concept et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium (a man’s home is his refuge). Zoning laws, eminent domain, environmental regulations, safety regulations, ordinances, taxes, fees, licensing…the constrictions on private property and free exchange of goods in our society are virtually endless.

4. Modern Medicine: a branch of science that allowed a major improvement in health and life expectancy, beginning in Western societies, but also in their colonies.

One of the more frustrating aspects of living in contemporary America is enduring the endless deluge of hodge-podge “homeopathic,” or “New Age” remedies for everything from the common cold to terminal cancer.  Needless to say, we might as well bring back witchcraft to cure us of our maladies, as prep-work for dealing with the joys of socialized medicine. One can imagine the folksy alternatives that will appear if Obamacare gets fully implemented, such as if one is slated for an operation in nine months and only has six to live. But to wit, the trend in medicine is towards the primitive and away from the modern. The organic food movement, for its part, virtually sprouted up from out of nowhere, and it is one of the delicious ironies that the use of organic fertilizer spread diseases like e Coli.  On the other hand, the banning of the pesticide DDT caused millions of deaths from Malaria. There is certainly an anti-scientific, anti-rational tendency in left-wing thought, and it continues to permeate Western culture. (Or what’s left of it). And incidentally, our scientists haven’t effectively cured a major disease since Polio.

5. Consumer Society: a mode of material living in which the production and purchase of clothing and other consumer goods play a central economic role, and without which the Industrial Revolution would have been unsustainable.

Few things draw the ire of the modern left than the “materialism” of Western society, a faddish disposition begun by economist John Kenneth Galbraith.  But what, pray tell, is a non-materialist economy? The employment of resources to fulfill the demands of the many, fueled by mass production, has led to a dramatic increase in the standard of living in the West. But not to hear the left tell it.  Somebody, somewhere, has to be getting exploited.  If buying something one wants with money one earns becomes at the minimum a “victimless crime,” then the Democrat Party could easily be put out of business.  There would be no need for the left’s hand in the economy, inevitably shoveling money back to itself.  And of course, the innumerable regulations mentioned above, to protect us from every conceivable incident rather than allow the law to deter and punish crimes, provides further avenues for manipulation.

6. Work Ethic: a moral framework and mode of activity derivable from (among other sources) Protestant Christianity, which provides the glue for the dynamic and potentially unstable society created by apps 1 to 5.

When the Democrat Party subsidizes failure and rewards idleness, it undercuts the productive dynamism that propels the economy and allows the rising tide to lift all boats.  Rather than providing a safety net, it has tied up a hammock; as fellow blogger cosmoscon pointed out, “over 90% of all tax revenues go to pay Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment Insurance. … And yes, Social Security is an entitlement program.” That’s before the interest on the debt is paid.  America is taking a nap.


7. Constitutionally limited government: A novel form of government deriving from the Enlightenment principles of individual sovereignty and representative decision-making.

The dark days of Absolutism led to a revolt against arbitrary and unjust rule. Scholars such as Locke and Montesquieu devised political arrangements that would institutionally limit government power and unleash human genius and activity through ordered liberty. As the barriers to democratic government that were instituted in The Constitution have been weathered away, the country has become increasingly unstable.  The 17th amendment, undoing the authorization for state legislatures to elect Senators, led to direct elections for Senators and a more popularly influenced Congress. The lobbying of interest groups, such as public sector unions, has led to an all-out scramble for the power of the purse.  Bills that previously would be considered unconstitutional are being passed or even reconciled in the nominal interest of “democracy.”  But our founders specifically designed our government to resist the caprices of democracy, which has proven to be unstable and conducive to the rise of demagogic tyrants.

8. Cultural confidence: When members in a society believe in their way of life, seek to pass it onto their children, and would like to see it promulgated throughout the world.

The left’s counterpoint to cultural confidence is “multi-culturalism,” or the ideal that other cultures around the world hold equal value with one’s own culture. Such a point of view is peculiar to Western Civilization and is indisputably contrived, or in other words, is not “organic.” One of the greatest ironies of the modern left is the notion that other cultures are equal to Western culture, regardless of the content of those cultures or how people live within them.  Multi-culturalism is therefore a leveler of the Western-belief system and a facilitator of cultural-political erosion.

Sources of cultural confidence include the Christian religion, which the left is obviously hostile to, and has led the hard left to ally with political Islam. Many societies throughout history have not been directly conquered but rather culturally weakened and absorbed. Both the central European Avar Kingdom and the Jewish Khazar Empire were culturally absorbed by the Slavs (or “slaves” to read one etymology) and disappeared, for two European examples. A culture that doesn’t display any confidence is one that no one can believe in.  A culture that no one believes in is one that nobody will stand up for. Such cultures cannot survive, let alone prosper.


Those who are fairly well-read can easily grasp that the American left is doing the virtual opposite of what has been shown to be successful throughout history. Whether one thinks that it is just a coincidence, or that the left has codified its policies with the express aim of “deconstructing” Western Civilization, while reconstructing it through the culture, is up to the reader. But let there be no doubt that the left’s positions are not historically considered to be successful, and the Democrat Party’s record is too strewn with failure for the sane, self-interested person to be impervious to recognizing.

Americans Overcome the Odds

The American spirit is defined by and thrives in adversity. Rugged, individualist, and pioneering, our forebears forged ahead regardless of the obstacles. Despite hardship, disease, starvation, revolution, civil conflict, and war, the heart of freedom beats on. The nation’s founders opposed all those who sought to thwart their spiritual mission to live free or die trying.

That legacy is now threatened. An American generation is now thrust into the crucible of divine fire, testing the mettle of the citizenry to overcome a growing enemy – one that uses fear and lies to turn the state against the people. While the fate of the nation remains dim, the light of truth yet shines brightly. As a people, we must recognize that we have faced dark times before and have triumphed over the fiercest of enemies. And God willing, we shall prevail again.

The victory in Wisconsin’s recall election is but one step forward in a long march to take the country back from would-be tyrants. Much of the credit for Governor Walker’s success comes from the tea party faithful whose thousands of individual contributions help lift the incumbent’s tide against the union-backed opposition.

This is an opportune time to provide retrospective for the country’s long legacy of overcoming odds, and how we of the present generation must continue that steeped tradition. While progressives try to demoralize true patriots as they implement their state-centered society, we must frame our multi-generational struggle to restore liberty as a historic quest to liberate mankind from tyranny and oppression.

It is the year 1620. Captain John Smith presides over a ragged band of settlers who forge through a swampy countryside in the midst of heat and relentless mosquitoes to found a colony at Jamestown, Virginia. The ghosts of Roanoke provide sober testament to the dangerous nature of the task. Savage natives, plague, and starvation were the initial rewards for the hardy settlers. But hardship gave way to fortune as the introduction of tobacco marked the beginning of a promising new enterprise; one that would establish trade so vital for the preservation of life in the colonies. Americans find a way to survive.

Meanwhile, at Plymouth Plantation in later-day Massachusetts, William Bradford leads an exhausted but grateful party onto the shores of America. A devout and pious group, the English separatists known as the Puritans increase their numerous troubles by adopting common property. The deadly effects of this undertaking are well worth noting:

The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince they [the] vanitie of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients, applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte.

Plymouth Plantation was racked by starvation as long as the socialist measures reigned. After the adoption of private property, the former year’s starvation gave way to bounty. The cornucopia of the first Thanksgiving was replenished for years afterward, a tradition that taught men foresight borne of humility. Americans adapt and learn from their mistakes using commonsense and good judgment.

The eventual success Jamestown and Plymouth colonies would be followed by others, such as those of Providence and Pennsylvania. The trials in the wilderness proved formative as increasingly better-armed adversaries sought to deprive the settlers of their hard-fought gains. Predatory powers from abroad jostled in the New World to push out the resilient upstarts, who prepared the way for potentially easy-won empire. But Americans themselves are not imperialist; they expand liberty at the expense of tyranny.

At the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers began the dispute that the Quebecois would later call the La guerre de la Conquête or “The War of Conquest.” Americans and Brits would later refer to it as “The Seven Years’ War” or “The French and Indian War.” Pitting the French and native American tribes, such as the Algonquin, the Ottawa, and the Shawnee, against the Brits, their American subjects, and the Iroquois league, the war would rage in sporadic conflicts from Virginia to Nova Scotia from 1756-1763. The conflict would leave a deep impression on the minds of many of the United States’ founding fathers, such as Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. The hardships imposed by the British upon the Americans during the war’s course would be marked among the “long train of abuses” in Thomas Jefferson’s draft of The Declaration of Independence.

And indeed this declaration was a shot across the bough to tyrants across the world. It would proceed with principled opposition to tyranny; as opposed to the aimless anarchy of today’s left, who fancy their opposition to liberty as a continuance of the American tradition. It is no such thing.

Perhaps Americans’ inspiring history of perseverance is best illustrated by George Washington’s trials at Valley Forge. Near Mount Misery and Mount Joy, barefoot and ragged soldiers under Washington’s command dig in on the frozen terrain of Valley Forge. It is the winter of 1777. Starving and diseased, the sole comfort these men receive comes from the scores of camp followers, women and children who provide rations and affection to the brave defenders of the homeland. Washington’s men struggle through the wilderness while they fight one of the key battles of the revolutionary campaign; not solely against the British and their Hessian mercenaries, but against themselves. Their steadfast resolution to continue on, in the dead of winter and despite interminable hardship, proves the pivotal moment in American history. In this fateful hour, the Continental Army is forged into a steely weapon, and the spirit of a nation embodied.

No less a miracle occurs after the Revolutionary War than the series of improbable victories that culminate in the American victory. The resulting Constitutional Convention is marked by innumerable compromises, which are reached after prolonged wrangling; not only over the interests of the thirteen colonies, but over the key questions of American history: The institution of slavery and the power of the national government.

Northern and southern colonies sow the seeds of future enmity by compromising on the status of slaves; though rightly the Constitution bans the importation of slaves, the ratifiers as a whole do not allow the document to declare in full voice the citizenship of all men. Those who come to be called the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists argue over the crucial question of the relative power of the national government vis-a-vis the states. Both dilemmas would be resolved in the bloody affair known as the “Civil War.”

The climax that would settle the ideological contradictions of the Founding, and not all for the better, would be forestalled by more immediate considerations. Most pressing were the raging Napoleonic Wars in Europe, which would engulf the United States due to its close relationship with France. The dethroned Great Britain sought vengeance in America, as well as the reestablishment of its lost trade, while France embarked upon an expedition to embroil Europe in flames.

Truly, Washington and Jefferson foresee the danger of foreign entanglements, though practical considerations made them impossible to avoid. Trade proves a more troublesome matter than anticipated as warring powers view any assistance to their adversaries with hostility.

The period between the Constitution’s ratification and the War of 1812 was one of lost innocence and the disabuse of naivete. The suppression of Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the establishment of a central bank by the Federalists, throws down the gauntlet to the heroes of the American Revolution who fought to remove oppression from our shores. Creeping tyranny is established in the shadow of the glorious Founding.

The War of 1812 would expose the soft underbelly of the American experiment, as the lack of a standing national army made it vulnerable to attack. The British would send the ragtag outfits of the states into a scramble as it invaded and proceeded to cut a swathe to the nation’s capital. In August of 1814, the country’s defenders embarrassed and fleeing, the British occupied Washington and burned down the public buildings in a pretentious and vindictive orgy.

Yet their vainglorious display of renewed dominance would prove short-lived. General Andrew Jackson, earning his nickname of Old Hickory, is compelled to lead a campaign to return the British menace to its foreign shores. Harassing the red coats interminably, the American troops push the invaders down the Mississippi river to the Brits’ demise at The Battle of New Orleans. Other nations picked fights with the United States. Americans ended them.

As the British are driven south and out of the states, settlers head westward into the wild frontier. Following the Louisiana Purchase, Lewis and Clark led the way for Americans to fulfill the Manifest Destiny of a country straddling the earth between the shining seas. Along with the intrepid souls seeking land and fortune in the West, follow cattle, ox, and horse-driven carriages. The harsh terrain claims many victims from exposure and disease, but in the course of two generations, all foreign powers are either pushed out or their territories are annexed. The power vacuum that attracted imperialist ambitions from Europe has been filled, at the tragic price of the loss of many Native Americans’ and settlers’ lives. But Americans moved forward.

The haul of supplies by land from east to west proved slow and exhausting, spurring innovations in transportation like the steam locomotive, which was put into service in America in the 1820s. Within fifty years a railway line is built predominantly by Americans and Chinese immigrants that spans from New York to San Francisco. The golden spike marrying the Central Pacific Railroad and the Union Pacific Railroad is driven home at Promontory Point in Utah on May 10, 1869. Coast-to-coast travel in a matter of days, rather than months, is now a reality. Americans see their visions through to the end.

Industrial forces transform America further, accentuating the cultural divide between north and south. While the southern states remained agrarian and slave-owning, the northern states grow urban, cosmopolitan, and liberal. Abolitionists struggle fiercely to see the establishment of rights for all Americans come to fruition. The Underground Railroad provides a passage to freedom for those blacks willing and able to escape. All Americans yearn to breathe free.

Resentment of the North grows, and every compromise, including laws that seek to cordon off the institution of slavery, seemed to delay the inevitable clash. Secession becomes a watchword in the air since the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798-99, which are a response to federal overreach. Written secretly by Jefferson and Madison, they provide legal and principled rationale for state oversight of federal law and the non-enforcement of unconstitutional laws known as “nullification.” Slavery is far from the only wedge that divides the northern and southern states.

The election of 1860 brings to power Abraham Lincoln of the newly formed Republican Party, which splits from the Whigs over the issue of slavery (but not much else) and combines with the “Free Soil” Democrats. By Lincoln’s inauguration, seven states have already declared secession. The divorce would not be amicable.

Lincoln declares the secessions “legally void,” invoking the familiar rationale of forming a more “perfect union.” Though he states that he would not invade the South, or end slavery, he would rightfully reclaim “federal property” if necessary. Needless to say, southerners bristle.

Years of miserable war wracks the conscience of a nation; children orphaned, fathers killed and maimed, families torn apart. Sherman burns his way through the South, slaughtering thousands, while southern dispatches scramble to re-form into a cohesive army. The moment of truth for a nation, entailing southern submission or the freedom of the slaves, is fast approaching.

On July 1, 1863, Confederate troops approach Gettysburg to seize much-needed supplies, including shoes for their bare and aching feet. Because Gettysburg is an important thoroughfare for supply lines, Union troops under General Mead move hastily to cut off the Confederacy. The armies collide, sparking the pivotal battle of the Civil War.

After two days of intense fighting, the fate of a nation hangs in the balance. Lee gambles on a desperate maneuver to collapse the middle of the Union army. One account sums the last push for the South:

Thinking the Union center had weakened from these attacks, Lee decided the next day to hit it first with artillery, and then an infantry charge led by George Pickett’s division. Stuart’s late-arriving cavalry was to come in behind the Union center at the same time, but they were held off by Union cavalry led by a young General George Custer. After an hour’s duel, Union artillery deceived the Confederates into thinking their guns were knocked out. Then 13,000 Rebels marched across the field in front of Cemetery Hill, only to have the Union artillery open up on them, followed by deadly Federal infantry firepower. Scarcely half made it back to their own lines. In all, Lee lost more than a third of his men before retreating to Virginia. Meade, a naturally cautious man, decided the loss of one-quarter of his men had been enough, and only feebly tried to pursue Lee, missing an opportunity to crush him.

The Confederacy fights on, surrendering nearly two years later on April 9, 1865. A war that had been in doubt for the Union prior to Gettysburg, becomes its triumph. Five days later, an American president tragically dies along with the South’s cause. Americans fight to the end.

Though the South’s defeat was a consequential day for the freedom of slaves, it gave the North nearly unlimited powers to dictate terms to the defeated. Reconstruction is marked not only by the prodding of the South to turn slaves into freemen, but by the placement of a national yoke on all states who sought escape from the Union. The United States has become a nation, for better and for worse.

The second founding of the United States concentrates the central power that most of the original founders thought so dangerous. The ambitious and power-hungry flock to the epicenter of politics and economy, seeking to wield influence over their presumed inferiors, as the vanquished Anti-Federalists had predicted. Freedom is on the run, although American clout is on the ascendancy.

The people of the United States weather a series of painful global depressions ranging from 1873 to 1896. By the turn of the century, the crucial elements of the modern state as we now know it are present. The South is consolidated, as the intellectual opposition to statism erodes under governmental control of education. Powerful trusts forge ties to corrupt politicians for both influence and protection, pulling the strings for tariffs, subsidies, and military adventurism. The Progressives pitch an intellectual and moral justification for unlimited state intervention; indeed, under the rubric of protecting the consumer, particular monopolies develop and a central bank is formed. And then came World War I.

President Woodrow Wilson promises not to enter the European war as one of many campaign pledges he would later break. After stalling for three years, the U.S. is pulled into the fray by a combination of understandable German hostility to U.S. trade with Britain and an elaborate propaganda campaign undertaken by the Wilson administration. American sailors and doughboys charge off to foreign shores, striking decisively against the Germans and Austrians and helping to end the bloodiest war in world history. The victory establishes America as a great power for the next century.

Despite an immediate depression upon the termination of the war, America quickly recovers and a post-war boom ensues. Fueled by fantastic technological innovation and easy money policy, the 1920s roars towards a devastating crash in 1929. State interventionists like Hoover and FDR are quick to seize upon the opportunity to orchestrate the economy’s “recovery,” which would not nominally come for another decade. Americans suffer famine, drought, and rampant unemployment, ending only with a catastrophic war foisted upon them by the imperialist Japanese.

The Great Depression becomes the proving grounds for innumerable social and economic engineering schemes, although they only exacerbate America’s problems. The Alphabet Soup becomes the alphabet soup kitchen, conditioning Americans to become accustomed to paternalistic government. And re-elect FDR is what they did time and time again, apparently not knowing any better. There was not the example of the demise of a Hitler or a Mussolini or a Stalin to teach Americans the danger of concentrated state power. But fortunately for the nation, World War II would acquaint millions of Americans with the hard reality of fascism; the defeat of the Nazis, the fascists in Italy, and the imperial Japanese reforges American patriotism as well as instills an antipathy for virulent nationalism and socialism. The triumphant D-Day invasion, June 6th, 1944, is emblematic of the nation’s courageous advance despite the most daunting adversity. Americans oppose tyranny when they see it.

The statists, not dissuaded in the least by the experience, nonetheless learn to conceal their designs on America. Keynesianism, a brand of Fabian socialism, was taken worldwide as a result of the Bretton Woods conference. The rise of the USSR would provide a bi-polar foil to the freedom-loving USA that would rule out the promulgation of naked socialism out-of-hand. Intellectuals lament this state of affairs.

The sacrifice of heroic Americans for the sake of their nation’s security and their European allies would not be appreciated for long overseas. The “greatest generation” shows tremendous heart and determination, and inspires countless other countrymen; but in Europe, its accomplishments are all but taken for granted. America stands for freedom in the world, even if others take it for granted.

In addition, the U.S. faces the task of rebuilding war-ravaged Japan, which it was compelled to bomb into submission. The examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are seared into the minds of America’s adversaries, and deters others from utilizing the unconscionable weapons. The nation feels that the least it can do is get the courageous country back on track, even in light of the cowardly act at Pearl Harbor. After America kicks an enemy down, it offers a hand back up.

When the communist armies of the northern territory of Korea invade the south, a U.N. resolution is quickly dispatched; and it is assumed that America would do the bulk of the fighting. And fight it did. For three long years, Americans fight on a strategically irrelevant peninsula for the freedom of millions. When the North Koreans push, Americans fight on. When the Red Chinese entered the war, Americans fight on. And having pushed back the combined armies to the 38th parallel, America draws a line in the sand and make a promise to defend it. It does to this very day. When Americans come back from this “Forgotten War,” they don’t speak of it again. Not only are Americans brave, they are humble.

The height of the Cold War brought fierce competition between America and the communists; a deadly arms race and an equally significant space race was launched in the 1950s. The Soviets shock Americans not only with its first nuclear bomb test in 1949, but by beating them to space with Sputnik in 1958. It would take an endeavor of immense proportions, entailing dedication, imagination, and courage for an American to reach space with Apollo 8 in 1968. In the face of numerous setbacks and even a number of astronaut deaths, the U.S. would land a man on the moon with Apollo 11 in 1969. America’s pioneering spirit reaches strives for new zeniths.

But along with this extraordinary high comes terrible lows. The Vietnam Conflict becomes one of the longest gut-wrenching episodes in American history. Pulled in by a combination of French weakness and principled opposition to communist expansion, America is entrenched over the course of years in highly intense pitched guerrilla warfare. Tens of thousands of soldiers face nauseating heat, stifling humidity, and relentless insects, in addition to the merciless Vietnamese. After twenty years of escalating warfare, without the forceful impetus from the political elite to win the war decisively, the United States withdraws. Vietnam War vets came home without parades or fanfare. In light of America’s history of victory at all costs, this must have sown undeserved shame and guilt in the honorable veterans’ hearts. The determination of the troops was not matched by the resolution of the political establishment. The heart of America was being severed from its political head; the fortitude of the citizenry has been unmatched by political courage from its elected leadership.

The 1970s were a time of tremendous uncertainty and anxiety. The oil embargo, stagflation, and the prostrate regime of Jimmy Carter culminates in humiliation at the hands of Iranians and the growing scourge of international terrorism. It would take a return to principle to steady the nation, and that is exactly what governor of California named Ronald Reagan does.

For the first time in a generation, an American president speaks of freedom and actually means it. Reagan is loved by the heart of the country and despised by its head. The Great Communicator speaks to the nation’s passions and identity in a way that few presidents have ever done. Americans see themselves as capable and resilient, as the political leadership had grown comfortable to seeing them as dependent and obeisant. President Reagan breathes fresh air into stale politics and makes Americans feel good to be themselves again. When Americans are given the latitude to get back to leading the economy, the greatest boom in the nation’s history develops.

But Reagan marks his place in our history not only for his wisdom in unleashing the American spirit to create and build, but for confronting a long-time adversary – not just with weapons but with morality itself. The “Evil Empire” is a rotten, decaying state, and President Reagan knows that a combination of military-economic pressure and moral challenge would accelerate the Soviet Union’s demise, thus making the world a better place.

On June 12, 1987, after two terms of vigorous and principled opposition to socialism at home and abroad, Reagan issues a moral demand:

We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

Gorbachev would not need to tear down the wall, the Berliners would do it for him. Reagan strikes a great blow for freedom. The political elite shrugs and plans its next subterfuge. Americans rejoice, for they had helped to liberate their fellow men. Progressives scheme to recreate East Berlin on American soil.

Reagan’s principled opposition to statism does not last for long in Washintgon. Although President George H.W. Bush serves under Reagan, he is not a great fan. Initiation of the First Gulf War becomes Bush’s most memorable decision, and a tremendous victory for the country’s fighting forces abroad. Millions are spared death, mutilation, or rape at the hands of the genocidal Saddam Hussein. But again, political courage fails to resolve the matter while the capability of the American military is demonstrably sufficient to do so. Afraid to upset regional powers, Hussein is allowed to remain dictator and to flaunt peace terms for another decade. It would take a national emergency of unprecedented proportions to cast new light on the lingering danger of the Iraqi regime.

September 11th, 2001 is quite possibly the darkest day in American history. The nation’s psyche is so shaken that a profound sense of unease penetrates all spheres of life for several years. But as the country struggles to combat an invisible menace named terrorism, it is also forced to confront the precarious nature of freedom itself. The War in Afghanistan brings a pledge from George Bush to bring the evildoers to justice, providing some salve to the injury. But this just war combines with an Iraq war that sullies the image of America in the minds of many citizens. The Iraq War, for better or for worse, tests the limits of people’s patience.

The U.S. military comes under assault not only by ruthless enemies overseas, but by hostile press at home. They fight in unimaginable conditions with less than first-rate equipment. In sand, wind, and heat they continue on. They hunt down the most despicable and cruel of men and bring them to justice. They protect women and children, help build schools, provide food and medicine, and no doubt comfort as many as practicable. The living hell of war is made that much more unbearable by the scorn and ridicule of their very mission. Liberation is no longer a worthy cause for the elite, belying their own shallow valuation of freedom.

Yet American troops fight on, plugging away in the face of daily casualties. The picture in Iraq appears bleak, by all media accounts. When President Bush proposes a surge to quell the stubborn insurgency, the left balks. Future president Obama questions the wisdom of the plan, and votes against it. Bush deprives the Democrats of a quagmire along the lines of Vietnam, which had given the left so much political capital. The success of the surge demonstrates that when Americans are allowed the freedom to take action, they win, regardless of the odds. If the Democrats had gotten their way, the surge likely doesn’t happen.

The challenges that face our country today are immense. Massive debt, intrusive government, and a president demonstrably hostile to freedom are among the obstacles that are placed before us. The Roman senator Cicero, who lived during the collapse of the Roman Republic, and who opposed the rise of Caesar, describes the menace of traitors, and their ability to bring down a country:

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.

Calling Obama a traitor for his abuse of The Constitution is not necessary, for he is but a sign of the intellectual decay of the nation; although the scourge Cicero speaks of is worth noting in the big picture. President Obama is just one man. Removing him from office would be a resounding success, but it signals only another step in a long and arduous process to restore freedom. A powerful cadre has infiltrated the halls of government to establish itself as a ruling elite who, unchecked, will dictate terms to a permanent underclass, in flagrant disregard of our Constitution. We must fight to preserve America’s place in history; we must act like historic men.

Will we be so cowardly to cede the lamp of liberty to those who would snuff it out, casting the world into untold darkness? That is surely our fate should we relent and today’s political elites prevail. It is time to take up the mantle of our forefathers and become the champions of liberty. After all, we are Americans. And we will overcome the odds.

Obama Literally Re-Writes History In Black and White

It is no secret that liberals have re-written most of our historical events, but the newest re-writing of history is more blatant than anything previously.

Starting with 1923, with the biography of President Calvin Coolidge, all but one Presidential Profile on the official government website has been re-written to add Obama’s “place in history” alongside that particular president.

Evidently history cannot stand without Obama’s agenda, so a new footnote section has been added on each of the revised biographies, entitled, “Did You Know?”

This discovery was made by the Heritage Foundation’s Rory Cooper, who said he originally found it “funny”, until he realized how many biographies had been changed. Mr. Cooper hit the twittersphere with the hashtag #ObamaInHistory, mocking Obama’s narcissism.

When asked about the additions to the Presidential Biographies, which were written by historian Michael Beschloss and journalist Hugh Sidey, a White House official, who spoke to the press on the condition of anonymity said:

“We simply added links at the bottom of each page to related whitehouse.govcontent, which is a commonly used best practice to encourage people to browse more pages on a site.”

Here are some examples of our new, re-written, Obama-agenda history:

Last but not least, the man that Obama loves to blame the most, George W. Bush:

  • In 2002, President George W. Bush’s State of the Union was the first to be live broadcast on the Internet. In 2011 and 2012, President Obama’s State of the Union speeches were available in an enhanced live stream versionthat featured infographics, charts and data side-by-side in real time with the President’s speech.
  • In 2009, former President Bush partnered with 42nd President Clinton tohelp rebuild Haiti, after the country was devastated by an earthquake.

One thing is for certain: there doesn’t seem to be any other president in history that loved himself more than Barack Obama.

Liberals Think The Answer To Every Situation Is Higher Taxes

 How many times must liberals be shown that what they believe and try to force people to practice, via tax codes, is simply incorrect? Two recent occurrences got me thinking about this subject: (1) Obama’s appearance at the National Prayer Breakfast and his call for higher taxes, and (2) Obama’s call, in his State of the Union address (SOTU), the name of fairness, for corporations to pay more taxes.

President Barack Hussein Obama appeared on Thursday, February 2, 2012, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC. Obama did not actually say that Jesus would back higher taxes. But he did say, “I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” Does “give up some of the tax breaks” equate to increasing taxes? If the answer is “yes” (as this article contends) then an examine of tax increases and the resulting consequences is certainly in order.

In 2003, in “The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates,” Dr. Daniel Mitchell offered some historical incite into tax rates and revenue generation in the US. He says that when tax rates are reduced, the economy’s growth rate improves and living standards increase. But when higher tax rates are invoked, economic performance suffers and stagnant tax revenues occur. When lower tax rates are present, lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden, a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians (such as Obama) to support lower tax rates.

In the face of this historical evidence, why do liberals still call for higher taxes?

President Obama said, in his SOTU (at the 3:37 mark), “We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.” At the 11:48 mark, he said, “No American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax.”  [emphasis mine]  Before all of you liberals start screaming that I am “cherry picking,” or that I took his remarks “out of context,” let me continue. Obama wants to, through the tax code, force businesses to take actions that will reduce profits. If cheaper labor can be found overseas, corporate profits will increase. So he calls for a basic minimum tax to support those whose jobs were outsourced. Increased taxes reduce corporate profit.

The debate over the impact of tax increases currently focuses upon small businesses. Most small businesses use the individual, rather than corporate, tax process. If they make earnings of more than $200,000 or $250,000 a year, under the Obama proposal, their top marginal tax rate would go up. Liberals are calling for tax increases, primarily on upper-income taxpayers and businesses, including small businesses, the primary job creators in the country. Analysis by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that businesses that employ 20 to 250 people would be most affected.

And who can ever forget Obama’s call, in 2008, for raising capital gains tax? Obama acknowledged that raising the capital gains tax rate could reduce revenues, but he remained interested in raising the rate “for purposes of fairness.”

So liberals’ answer to every situation is to raise taxes. They call for increases in the name of fairness. They have no concern for the consequences of tax increases, particularly on jobs. They have no concern for business profits. They have no concern whatsoever for history. All they believe is that it is “fair” for the rich to pay increased taxes. They never seem to bother with history, to examine the consequences of their actions. Does the phrase, “There is none so blind as he who refuses to see” come to mind?

US Textbooks: Muslims Discovered America

“History from an Islamo-centric perspective” .. even that’s sugar coating it.

“Public Schools Teach the ABCs of Islam,” by Erick Stakelbeck

“..did you know that Muslims discovered America? Or that Jerusalem is an Arab city? That’s just some of the “history” that students in America’s K-12 classrooms have been taught in recent years–with the help of taxpayer money.”

Key Texas Historical Records Face Uncertain Future

HOUSTON, Aug. 31, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Key documents that shed light on historic periods in the birth and growth of Texas face an uncertain future due to poor preservation practices and limited resources in court record archives across the state, according to a report released today Wednesday, August 31, 2011by a task force charged with reviewing the situation by the Supreme Court of Texas.

The records — many that are decaying or being destroyed due to a mix of events and conditions — contain information about famous Texans, record the lives of ordinary residents of the Lone Star State during historic periods of time and, for some, such as African Americans, may contain the only information that exists about their ancestors.

TASK FORCE BILL KROGER / Bill Kroger, Chair, Texas Court Records Preservation Task Force. (PRNewsFoto/Task Force)

Bill Kroger, Chair, Texas Court Records Preservation Task Force. (PRNewsFoto/Task Force)

“We have spent the past two years volunteering time to study and learn about the preservation of these records,” said Bill Kroger, chair of The Texas Court Records Preservation Task Force and a partner at Baker Botts L.L.P. Mark Lambert, Deputy Commissioner of Archives and Records for the Texas General Land Office, is vice chair of the Task Force.

“After visiting with district and county clerks across the state, collecting surveys and reviewing documents and records at more than 500 storage facilities, we learned that while some clerks have the necessary resources and are doing a good job preserving records, other clerks need substantial help going forward to keep from losing important historical information,” Kroger said.

Lambert said: “Some counties store their irreplaceable historic records in places such as metal storage containers, poorly maintained buildings, and maintenance sheds that hold equipment, chemicals, and holiday decorations near their records. Many counties do not have secure, air-conditioned and humidity controlled storage for their records, the single best solution for their long-term preservation. Clerks are generally aware of these issues, but they need better assistance from the community and from other elected county officials.”

Kroger added, “There is also more we could be do at the State level, such as fundraising and better state-wide training. Our report tries to address some of the issues.”

Among the endangered documents is the record of the trial and sentencing of outlaw John Wesley Hardinin 1878. Hardin shot and killed Deputy Sheriff Charles Webb in Comanche County in 1874. He fled Texas but was hunted down by Texas Ranger John B. Armstrong in Pensacola, Florida. Hardin was brought back to Comanche County where he was tried and convicted of murder. The District Clerk of Comanche County is so worried about these records of the case that she keeps the file in a secret place in her office.

The story about Hardin doesn’t end with his trial. He served time for the murder conviction in a Huntsvilleprison. He was released from prison only to be shot and killed by John Selman Sr. in 1895. Kroger has seen court papers pertaining to Selman’s killing of Hardin for sale on the Internet.

This is just one example of what district and county clerks face in trying to preserve the records of Texashistory.

“These documents are our living history, the parchment of our past,” said Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson. “We must preserve them so that our descendants will appreciate the Texas they have inherited.”

The Task Force report, which will be formally presented to the Texas Supreme Court at a special hearing on September 26, 2011, identifies a number of preservation problems, including:

  • improper storage and handling at the storage facilities;
  • effects of moisture and temperature fluctuations;
  • ravages of rats, bugs and vermin; and
  • the acidity of the ink and the poor quality of paper used in recording information.

“Also, there are cases where records have been given away by government officials, or stolen by thieves and sold on the Internet,” Kroger said. “In some cases they were destroyed by fires, hurricanes or other natural disasters. Many records are stored in dilapidated structures — with no air conditioning or climate controls — and even in rail cars and storage bins.”

The Task Force found that while many clerks are skilled in modern management of electronic and other current court records, many clerks, especially those in old counties with small populations, have not been able to collect enough money to preserve records, Kroger added.

Among the Task Force recommendations:

  • better document preservation training for district and county clerks;
  • the adoption of better record handling and security;
  • development of statewide storage and preservation policies and procedures; and
  • more sustained, coordinated enforcement by state officials against thieves who are stealing these records.

At the hearing in September before the Texas Supreme Court, the Task Force will present the report to the Court. It will also unveil 20 previously undiscovered or not well known historic court records that were previously unpreserved.

These records have now been preserved by Louisiana Binding Services because of donations from the law firm of Baker Botts, L.L.P. and the State Bar of Texas.

“These records, which are now beautifully preserved, are of immense historical importance. In 20 documents, we have tried to tell the history of the State of Texas. We hope these records will illustrate the importance of preserving these documents going forward. These records are some of the crown jewels of the state.” says Kroger. “The Task Force hopes that the public will attend the hearing. It will be a special day.”

What America is Obama from? – Not Mine!

Wednesday evening Obama spoke during an Iftar Dinner at the White House celebrating Ramadan. Now some of you may know what the Ramadan is, but there might be a few that don’t know what it is. Ramadan is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, which lasts 29 or 30 days.

It is the Islamic month of fasting, in which participating Muslims refrain from eating, drinking and sexual intimacy with their partners during daylight hours and is intended to teach Muslims about patience, spirituality, humility and submissiveness to Allah.

During his speech he made a comment that I would call frightening. “Like so many faiths, Islam has always been part of our American family, and Muslim Americans have long contributed to the strength and character of our country, in all walks of life.”

Really? I mean did he just say that? Is he so ignorant of the American history? In my last article I proved that America was founded on Christian Values. So, where does Islam fit in, Obama? Those weren’t Muslims  present when the Pilgrims first landed? There was not anyone signing the Declaration of Independence,  practicing the Islamic faith, and no Muslims signed it.

Were there any Muslims fighting for our freedom from England? There is no mention of any in the history books that tell the history of how America came about. So, Obama I can say without a doubt that not only are you not eligible to be the president of the greatest nation on Earth because your father is Kenyan, but a sitting president or a candidate for president should at least know the history of the United States.

Besides Obama “praising” Islam, where are the Atheist on this? They attack Christians because we have faith in God and Jesus Christ – whom will deliver us from evil, as long as we do God’s will.

Matthew 6:9-13 Our Father in heaven,  Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven.  Give us this day our daily bread.  And forgive us our debts,  As we forgive our debtors.  And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen

Muslim activists in the West have been using the tactic of claiming that they worship the same god as the Christians in order to gain legitimacy and acceptance. One does not have to look very far to see the “God” Muslims serve is not like the one true God I serve.

14 centuries ago Mohammed started preaching his new religion in Mecca he was conciliatory and appeasing to Christians. He told them: “We believe in What has been sent down to us and sent down to you, our God is the same as your God.” Surah 29:46. But later, in Medina, after Mohammed gained strength, Allah then tells him to “Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day. Nor acknowledge the religion of truth (Islam), (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay Jizya (tribute tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued“. Surah 9:29

Yes, under the Old Testament law God was cruel with the people – but we are not supposed to live under the Old Testament laws now. Ever since Jesus Christ died on the cross for all of our sins we are to live under the New Testament laws. But nowhere in the Qu’ran do you see Allah making changes for believers to live by.

Atheist activist are upset and trying to remove everything related to the one true God,  but have been quiet about Muslims trying to implement Islamic religion into the United States. At least Christianity is a peaceful religion unlike Islam.

The website Bare Naked Islam had an article about Islam Billboards going up along the New Jersey Turnpike. While most billboards you drive by on the New Jersey Turnpike advertise things like hotels or cars, the billboards getting attention recently advertise a certain religion and are stirring up controversy. The reason I do not like this billboard is the fact that they used the American Flag underneath the word Islam – it is just not right. The only part of American History that Islam is part of, that most Americans will remember is Sept. 11, 2001.

Image provided by BareNakedIslam

MyFoxNY.com notes in an article about these billboards that drivers on the turnpike aren’t the only ones who will see these billboards. Similar ads are going up on highways in dozens of other states. One thing is for sure Islam is NOT nor was it EVER a part of the history of the United States. Obama, I think instead of going on vacation in a week or two – should stay home and study about the history of America! Folks please remember all these blunders that Obama has had in the past and is still having them.







Israel and the Art of Self-Preservation

Israel Territory-Six Day WarIt has finally happened.

“In a dramatic policy shift, Israel’s prime minister has agreed to negotiate the borders of a Palestinian state based on the cease-fire line that marks off the West Bank, a TV station reported Monday.”

In other words – Israel will go back to pre-1967 borders before the Arab World attacked it. Why? Supposedly this offer will stop the “Palestinians” from going to the United Nations and unilaterally proclaiming a state.

It’s truly amazing to me. Jews are supposedly a smart people. We have Nobel Prize laureates in biomedical, chemistry, economics, physics and literature reaching back more than 100 years. No one out there doubts that Jews have excelled in all areas – except, I would argue, one. Self-preservation when we are responsible for it.

G-d preserved the Jewish People in exile for more than 3000 years in order to return us to the Land of Israel in order to create the modern state. And here we are in 2011 being blackmailed into giving away our inheritance.

If we had a guarantee that these lands wouldn’t be used as a launching pad to attack Tel Aviv, Jerusalem or Be’er Sheva – we could conceivably assume that returning to a 9 mile wide border might possibly be a gamble that we would be willing to take. But there are no guarantees and we know what assuming gets us.

Considering the “Arab Spring” that sprung a few months ago, we have seen the Middle East neighborhood change – and not for the better. Iran is showing more influence in the region than they ever did before. The Gaza Strip – an experiment in “Palestinian” self-rule is a disaster. Rockets from Iran still rain daily upon civilian populations within Israel. Syria, a close ally of Iran, still supports Hezbollah in Lebanon – attacking Israel from the north. Egypt is no longer the close friend it used to be under Hosni Mubarak (not a pleasant fellow, but Israel could trust him). The military running Egypt allowed Iranian ships through the Suez Canal into the Mediterranean Sea for the first time. They no longer attempt to control what weapons come into the Gaza Strip through the smuggling tunnels. As Egypt gets ready for their first real election in years we wonder about the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood as they are being allowed to join in the process.

The Middle East is a scary place for a little democracy full of Jews and other minorities. The Arab Middle East is a vast 6,145,389 square miles (the USA has about 3.8 million sq.miles) while Israel has under 8,000 square miles which doesn’t include Gaza, Judea/Samaria or the Golan Heights (which doesn’t improve the numbers by much). Israel is tiny.

The “Palestinians” still do not recognize Israel as a “Jewish” state and they never will because they don’t believe that the Jews have any right to be there. When they are unable to acknowledge a “Jewish” state, it proves the point that it is not ‘Zionism’ as they proclaim to be the problem – but Jews and Judaism as the problem.

The point is not that the “Palestinians” need a “homeland” – they don’t. It is that they don’t want the Jews to have a homeland period. The Arab World could have solved the “Palestinian” question years ago – they have the money and the space. They didn’t want to – why should they? The “Palestinians” are a thorn in Israel’s side – a way to delegitimize the Jewish State, branding the Jews as usurpers when in truth it is the other way.

When Israel accepts the pre-1967 “Auschwitz” borders as a precondition for negotiations with people who are unable to recognize her existence as a Jewish state, when they themselves will unapologetically proclaim another Muslim state, it is mind boggling. When Israel accepts a 9 mile wide border as a precondition when surrounded by people who hate and wish them dead, it is mind boggling. When Israel hopes that proclaiming the pre-1967 borders as a legitimate starting point for negotiations in the hope that the United Nations, full of dictators and rogue states, will not recognize a new “Palestinian” terrorist state – it is mind boggling.

One hopes that G-d, who has protected the Jewish People over the last 3000 years to bring us to today, will again look kindly upon us and save us from ourselves.

The Reality Of The Situation In This Country

It appears that we have hit a new low in America. I just read an article via The Blaze that says according to the search engine results over the last couple of days, teenagers do not know who Osama Bin Laden is. I wish I could say this surprises me, but it doesn’t.

I remember in the months before the 2010 mid-term elections there was a “man on the street” style interview with different people and the majority of them interviewed had no idea who anyone in politics was, outside of Barack Obama. There were even people who didn’t know who Joe Biden was.

However, you show them a picture of “The Situation”, and oh my goodness! They knew immediately who he was! In fact, if I remember correctly, one woman even talked about how “hot” he is.

Ironically, I had not a clue who “The Situation” is before that segment! I had to look it up and when I found out he is a reality show star I was appalled!

The reality of the situation in this country is very disturbing.

So the question comes down to this: Who do we have to blame?

The answer to this question is wide and varied, I’m sure.

Obviously, education starts at home. Unfortunately, too many parents see the TV as their babysitter, so from a very young age our children are sat in front of an electronic box spewing mostly garbage. And our children are soaking it up like a sponge!

As they get older they are usually allowed to watch things that children have no business watching. They are being educated alright, but they are being educated about things they shouldn’t know until much later. And though they may be watching TV, or being on the internet as they get a bit older, the thought of checking out the news is foreign to them.

Then there is the education system. They are too busy teaching our children about Earth Day, being “green”, that capitalism is “evil”, new math which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and all the other various junk that they have no time for actual education of facts. Therefore, discussing news and world events that are actually relevant are ignored, all the while they shovel in the propaganda that is now classified as “news” but simply serves to further the leftist agenda.

And then there is our current administration. While I must say President Obama gave the best speech of his entire presidency Sunday night, he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. In January of 2009, President Obama said that it was “no longer necessary to kill Osama Bin Laden”. To his credit, he did say at that time that it would be his preference to “capture or kill him”, but it was no longer “necessary”.

Add in the fact that our President refuses to acknowledge that these are terrorists with ties to the Muslim religion, and up until very recently refused to even say it is terrorism, choosing rather to make it all sweet and mushy by  renaming  it “man-made disasters”. It is no wonder why most of this younger generation coming up has no clue what is going on and why killing Osama Bin Laden is news worthy all over the world!

The ever famous quote by poet and philosopher George Santayana should be a lesson to us. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

America, we have allowed our schools to be taken over by the leftist agenda. We have allowed a box to teach our children right from wrong, and the boxes right is more often than not our wrong! If this news story does not wake us up then I don’t know what will. What can we expect? We’ve become so complacent as a nation!

It has been not quite ten years ago that the attack of September 11 happened. Yes, in respect to capturing and killing the man who orchestrated these attacks, 10 years is a very long time for him to be free. However, ten years is nothing in the scope of history. If our kids do not know current history, how in the world do we expect them to know the history of this great nation?

We are indeed doomed to repeat our past if we do not take this seriously immediately and make the necessary changes to prevent this from happening! While there are many bright and beautiful things in our nation’s past, there are also some very dark times as well. Unfortunately, it appears as though we will more than likely repeat the darkest part of our past if things don’t make some drastic changes fast!

America, it’s time to wake up! I don’t know how many more warnings we are going to get!