By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God.

In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.

(more…)

In the late 1940s — when the Democrat party began shifting from denying equal rights to southern blacks to championing them — race became a central tenet of American politics. Although the Democrat party fought for slavery during the Civil War, formed the KKK during reconstruction, and used Jim Crow laws to keep blacks from enjoying their rights well into the 20th century, blacks seemed more than willing to look the other way in exchange for a few social programs that promised to bring them the equality they so sorely desired.

Eventually, these social promises (cemented in wealth redistribution programs like the “war on poverty” and racial quotas like affirmative action) came to define the Democrat’s relationship with black voters. Over time the focus on race became so integral to everything the Democrats did that blacks began to define themselves not as black Americans but as “African-Americans” (and soon “Mexican-Americans,” “Italian-Americans,” and every other conceivable people group followed suit). In effect, the language of race became paramount over all other language, and allegiance to race over all other allegiances.

We were reminded of these things in 2008 when Barack Obama was elected in part due to the color of his skin (and the promise of America’s first “African-American President” and a fulfillment of Martin Luther King Jr’s dream). Now just look what this focus on race got us: an inexperienced president whose solution for the ailing economy was to raise taxes, take over healthcare, nationalize certain automobile manufacturers, and regulate the financial sector to death (literally). And this is what makes Herman Cain’s announcement that he’s a black American rather than an African-American so refreshing: he’s turning back the dial on this race-above-all-else bunk.

Cain Said: “I do not try to use race to my advantage. I don’t even bring it up unless somebody asks me about it, and I have said repeatedly [that] this is not about color. This is about the content of your ideas, and your character.” Talk about the fulfillment of MLK’s dream! MLK said he dreamt of a day when people would not be judged by the color of their skin but the content of their character — which is exactly what Cain’s saying. And it’s 180 degrees from what Obama and the Democrat party are saying.

(more…)

From the Associated Press:

The last of the more than 60,000 Confederate veterans who came home to Alabama after the Civil War died generations ago, yet residents are still paying a tax that supported the neediest among them.

Despite fire-and-brimstone opposition to taxes among many in a state that still has “Heart of Dixie” on its license plates, officials never stopped collecting a property tax that once funded the Alabama Confederate Soldiers’ Home, which closed 72 years ago. The tax now pays for Confederate Memorial Park, which sits on the same 102-acre tract where elderly veterans used to stroll.

(more…)

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., May 30, 1884:

Not long ago I heard a young man ask why people still kept up Memorial Day, and it set me thinking of the answer. Not the answer that you and I should give to each other-not the expression of those feelings that, so long as you live, will make this day sacred to memories of love and grief and heroic youth–but an answer which should command the assent of those who do not share our memories, and in which we of the North and our brethren of the South could join in perfect accord.

So far as this last is concerned, to be sure, there is no trouble. The soldiers who were doing their best to kill one another felt less of personal hostility, I am very certain, than some who were not imperilled by their mutual endeavors. I have heard more than one of those who had been gallant and distinguished officers on the Confederate side say that they had had no such feeling. I know that I and those whom I knew best had not. We believed that it was most desirable that the North should win; we believed in the principle that the Union is indissoluable; we, or many of us at least, also believed that the conflict was inevitable, and that slavery had lasted long enough. But we equally believed that those who stood against us held just as sacred conviction that were the opposite of ours, and we respected them as every men with a heart must respect those who give all for their belief. The experience of battle soon taught its lesson even to those who came into the field more bitterly disposed. You could not stand up day after day in those indecisive contests where overwhelming victory was impossible because neither side would run as they ought when beaten, without getting at least something of the same brotherhood for the enemy that the north pole of a magnet has for the south–each working in an opposite sense to the other, but each unable to get along without the other. As it was then , it is now. The soldiers of the war need no explanations; they can join in commemorating a soldier’s death with feelings not different in kind, whether he fell toward them or by their side.

But Memorial Day may and ought to have a meaning also for those who do not share our memories. When men have instinctively agreed to celebrate an anniversary, it will be found that there is some thought of feeling behind it which is too large to be dependent upon associations alone. The Fourth of July, for instance, has still its serious aspect, although we no longer should think of rejoicing like children that we have escaped from an outgrown control, although we have achieved not only our national but our moral independence and know it far too profoundly to make a talk about it, and although an Englishman can join in the celebration without a scruple. For, stripped of the temporary associations which gives rise to it, it is now the moment when by common consent we pause to become conscious of our national life and to rejoice in it, to recall what our country has done for each of us, and to ask ourselves what we can do for the country in return.

So to the indifferent inquirer who asks why Memorial Day is still kept up we may answer, it celebrates and solemnly reaffirms from year to year a national act of enthusiasm and faith. It embodies in the most impressive form our belief that to act with enthusiam and faith is the condition of acting greatly. To fight out a war, you must believe something and want something with all your might. So must you do to carry anything else to an end worth reaching. More than that, you must be willing to commit yourself to a course, perhpas a long and hard one, without being able to foresee exactly where you will come out. All that is required of you is that you should go somewhither as hard as ever you can. The rest belongs to fate. One may fall-at the beginning of the charge or at the top of the earthworks; but in no other way can he reach the rewards of victory.

(more…)

On a recent pilgrimage to Gettysburg I ventured into the Evergreen cemetery, the scene of chaotic and bloody fighting throughout the engagement. Like Abraham Lincoln on a cold November day in 1863, I pondered the meaning of it all.  With the post-Tea Party wave of libertarianism sweeping the nation, Lincoln’s reputation has received a serious pillorying. He has even been labeled a tyrant, who used the issue of slavery as a mendacious faux excuse to pummel the South into submitting to the will of the growing federal power in Washington D.C. In fact, some insist, the labeling of slavery as the casus belli of the Civil War is simply a great lie perpetrated by our educational system.

First of all, was Lincoln in fact a tyrant?  For me the root of such a characterization centers on the man’s motivations. A man of international vision that belied his homespun image, Lincoln saw the growing power of an industrialized Europe and realized that a divided America would be a vulnerable one. “The central idea of secession,” he argued, “is anarchy.” Hence, maintaining the Union was his prime motivation, not the amassing of self-serving power.

It is true that Lincoln unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus. From a Constitutional standpoint, the power of the federal government to suspend habeas corpus “in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety” is clearly spelled out in Article 1, Section IX. And an insurrection of eleven states would certainly qualify as such. Whether or not Lincoln had the authority (Article I pertains to Congress) most significant to me is that the Constitution does allow for the suspension of habeas corpus in times of severe crisis. So, doesn’t the question distill down to a more wonkish matter of legal procedure, rather than the sublime notion of denying the rights of man?

Constitutional minutia aside, the question remains whether or not Lincoln’s actions made him a tyrant. Consider the country in 1861-1862, the years in which the writ was suspended, re-instituted and then suspended again until war’s end.  The war was not going well for the North, and Southern sympathies were strong in the border states and the lower Midwestern counties. The federal city was surrounded by an openly hostile Virginia on one side and a strongly secessionist Maryland on the other. “Copperhead” politicians actively sought office and could only sow further seeds of discord if elected. Considering these factors, one wonders what other course of action Lincoln could have taken to stabilize the situation in order to successfully prosecute the war. “Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts,” he asked, “while I may not touch a hair on the head of the wily agitator who induces him to desert?”

It seems that one’s appreciation for Lincoln’s place in history is largely an off-shoot of one’s position on the rebellion itself.

(more…)

Look, I have to admit there’s nothing wrong with either the conservative or Republican base. Frankly, you guys terrify us, you and your damn fascist Tea Parties. Is there anything more frightening than seas of grandmothers waving American flags and singing “patriotic” songs? I don’t think so. But the bozos driving your clown car need a complete upgrading in order to meet the new challenges of the twenty- first century, and one that the current crop of “leaders” is simply not up to. You morons need smart, ruthless, and savvy leadership, younger than your basic World War II veteran—hell, we’ve run a self- confessed draft dodger and a guy who quit on his comrades after a few months in Vietnam—not that there’s anything wrong with that! If you’re going to bring fruit salad and scrambled eggs to a knife fight, you might as well make sure your fighters are under fifty and are actually, you know, armed and ready to party.

You can’t afford colorless Speakers of the House, or go- along, get-along collaborationists like most of your senators. You need officers who are going to inspire the troops, not dispirit them, commanders who’ve earned the love of their followers precisely by not crossing the aisle, instead preferring to stand on principle. These brave men and women are going to have to step out of the ranks and step up, and when they are attacked by our side—as they surely will be—you must defend them. Nobody wants to lead troops into battle and, halfway across the killing fields, find out he or she is all alone.

Elections are not about programs, but principles.

Hey, Dumbo—“programs” are our thing. Our candidates churn out books on “programs” all the time. They answer endless rounds of questions about “programs,” helpfully posed by our plants in the media. In fact, we’ve made it seem that running for President or any other higher office is all about having the most ten- point plans, or five- year plans, or whatever. But what would you expect from a party that reveres FDR, but really hankers after the cultural revolutions and thousand- year plans that big- time statists of the past century so proudly hailed? We’ve got a “program” or a “plan” for everything, and you chumps have accepted the idiotic notion that one can plan further out than, say, five minutes (no wonder you’ve bought into the farce of “global warming”). Whereas those real military men you ought to be recruiting understand, like football coaches, the first rule of plans: that they go out the window the minute the first shot is fired. After which you rely upon the wisdom and guts of your commanders and the courage, training, and discipline of your troops to see you through to victory.

Principles are what counts. So stop trying to outdo us by rushing to the microphones with a silly plan to solve every social ill this side of halitosis whenever our pet frogs in the media croak about a new “crisis” in the daily news feed. In fact, forget about programs completely. Just say no! And if we call you out and demand to know—which we will, you can bet on that, it’s part of the playbook—the details of your “plan,” laugh and tell them to shove it and start talking about principles. (more…)

The NAACP’s resolution condemning the Tea Party movement for being explicitly racist is a betrayal of the organization’s historic importance to our country. It saddens me as the chairman of a civil rights organization that is the spiritual grandson of the NAACP that they have allowed their name and their tradition to be pimped by politicians who are worried about keeping their jobs in 2010.

As a student of history, particularly African-American history, I know that the racial pendulum often swings dramatically. In less than two decades after the Civil War, African-Americans would go from being represented in halls of congress and state legislatures all across our country into the neo-slavery of segregation.

While historians often condemn Southern Democrats and Northern white Republicans for this travesty, few have acknowledged the excesses of the Reconstruction period (1865-1876), perpetuated by some African-American leaders and their white patrons. America has come a long way in terms of race relations, and America does not want to turn back.

(more…)

Memorial Day is a day to recognize the sacrifice of all the men and women who have given their lives in defending our country. It began during the Civil War when cities and towns held special days to lay flowers on the graves of fallen, husbands, sons, and fathers. Women of the fallen who organized groups to place flowers on the graves of their loved ones may have started it.

Memorial Day has grown over the years to be commemorated with flag waving ceremonies, military parades and memorial services held at military cemeteries and parks across America.  Many cities and towns line the streets with the American Flag and some do not.  Patriotic citizens fly the flag in front of their homes on days like this, do you?

I lived in Simi Valley, California for over 10 years, it is infamous for the Rodney King trial and the home to many Los Angeles Police Officers, and has been rated in the top ten safest cities in America several times.  It is not like a city full of “rednecks” like some believe.  My neighbor on one side was a family from Mexico; next to him was a black family, across the street were some Arabs and down the street lived a Chinese family.  Yes there are many folks from India running the local gas stations and 7 Elevens and they are all very polite.  Simi Valley is a great place to raise a family.

On holidays like the 4^th of July and Memorial Day one could drive down any residential street in Simi Valley and see numerous American flags. Now I live in a neighborhood near the San Fernando Valley, where out of over 500 homes only one or two flags are flown. But when the Lakers are in the playoffs their flag adorns many cars.

It seems like political correctness dictates that flying your countries flag is not politically correct. Folks from countries like El Salvador, Mexico, Guatemala, etc. will adorn their cars with their flag, why don’t more Americans?

(more…)

Republicans would benefit tremendously from appreciating the heritage of our Grand Old Party, founded in 1854 to oppose the Democrats’ pro-slavery, anti-freedom agenda.

As they campaign for the mid-term elections, Republicans should ignore the lefty media spin and recognize that they hold the moral high ground.  From the first chapter of Back to Basics for the Republican Party: “How can we expect to convince voters to place their confidence in us when we lack confidence in our own heritage.”

Today, the nation’s capital celebrates Emancipation Day.  In his proclamation, the Democrat mayor, Adrian Fenty, omits something very important: the holiday commemorates the Republican Party’s abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.  That’s right, the Republican Party freed the slaves in DC.  And yes, the Democratic Party opposed freeing the slaves in DC – a fact which Democrats today dare not mention.

(more…)

Today, in 1861, Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter, a federal fort in Charleston Harbor. The attack kicked off the U.S. Civil War. It was widely expected to end quickly…it didn’t.

After 230 years, are the American people coursing toward eventual divorce?

Our polarized society increasingly ponders what would happen if American conservatives and liberals simply agreed that their differences had become irreconcilable, and redivided the nation to go their separate ways. Which side would prosper and experience an influx of migration from the other? Conversely, which side would likely become a fiscal and socio-political basket case?

Any reasonable person already knows the likely answer. One need only compare the smoldering wreckage wrought by liberal governance in such states as California or Michigan with the comparative prosperity created by conservative governance in such states as Texas or Utah. We can also examine the past 400 years, during which immigrants abandoned Europe for an America founded upon the fundamental principles of limited government and individual freedom.

Regardless, the above hypothetical has become increasingly frequent among both conservatives and liberals in recent years.

Following the 2004 election that they confidently expected would vindicate their 2000 rage and send President Bush back to Texas, liberals only half-jestfully proposed that “blue” states secede and join a new “United States of Canada.” Conservatives replied with a collective, “don’t let the screen door hit you in the [posterior] on your way out.”

(more…)

Today, in 1863, Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address, dedicating a new national cemetery.

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

The Federal Reserve’s purchase of $300 billion in Treasury debt, as well as its purchase of mortgage-backed securities, has aptly been described as “monetizing the U.S. government debt,” with appropriate concern that it will fuel inflation. 

If President Obama fancies himself a twenty-first century Abraham Lincoln, then we need Timothy Geithner to be his Salmon Chase. Lincoln’s Treasury Secretary was remarkably successful at financing the Civil War, with only limited inflation, and remarkable fidelity to the Constitution.

Chase was a radical Ohio abolitionist before the war (sometimes called the state’s “attorney general for runaway Negroes”), and a relentlessly ambitious rival of Abraham Lincoln. After Lincoln beat Chase for the 1860 Republican nomination, he made him his Secretary of the Treasury. Almost all historians regard Lincoln’s ability to keep Chase on board as one of the marks of his genius as a statesman.

Chase was also a hard-money man, and abhorred paper money—especially the paper emitted by state banks, excoriated (if somewhat exaggeratedly) as “wildcat banks”– creditors were said to have to battle wildcats to attempt to redeem the worthless notes of these reckless frontier banks. Chase believed that the United States needed a national currency, issued by a national banking system. As the Civil War’s costs grew exponentially, Congress pressed him to monetize the government’s debt by issuing Treasury notes unredeemable in gold or silver, and to declare them to be legal tender for all debts—the “greenbacks,” which color our paper money to this day. Chase stuck to his constitutional guns for as long as he could, but finally gave in. But he “hated the crime about to be committed,” as historian Bray Hammond put it. By the end of the war, Chase got his national banking system, and had eliminated unconstitutional state-bank paper currency.

(more…)