32 posts tagged “america”

Here on the country's "left coast", us native Californians are in mourning over the "Late, Great Golden State". Our state government is in full collapse and our future indicators are not very rosy.

Governance on most all levels in California has been dominated by Democrat party liberals for a whole lot of decades. This state, which is something in the neighborhood of the seventh largest economy in the world among all the nations on earth, represents what a leftist utopia looks like when liberal Democrat party politicians are put in charge over long periods of time. The rest of America can get a clear and unambiguous view of the result of the real time implementation of liberal doctrine and leftist policies.

Where that track record is most instructive is when the current state of affairs in California are compared with what used to be the reality on the ground before this state was almost entirely surrendered to the political left. The outcome of that comparison could not be more clear. The downward trend in so many different arenas is stunning. A once great state is being reduced to a whimpering shell of it's former self. What follows are some examples that illustrate our current reality.

STATE GOVERNMENT: Both the nation and the world is well aware of the yawning deficits we face today in California. A severe fiscal emergency is at hand in a state with close to the highest taxation rate in the country. The Democrat party has dominated the state legislature for what seems like forever and the result has been wild spending on social programs that remain almost unprecedented in state history. From subsidized housing, to free health care, to no cost food stamps and including just plain welfare, the cost of our giveaways is staggering and constantly growing. All the while, legislators cannot come up with a workable solution for completely upside down budget. The bottom line: state government is in a failure condition.

INFRASTRUCTURE: This state used to have the finest system of roads, highways and bridges anywhere in America. Today, that infrastructure is crumbling. There is little chance that it will be improved much in the foreseeable future. State infrastructure now ranks amongst the worst in the nation.

POPULATION: In modern times, California has always been a state with a healthy rate of population growth. Residents migrated from everywhere in the country if not the world. This state has long had a diverse and burgeoning population. But that trend is in reverse. In the past few years, the population of American citizens residing here has diminished year over year. That continues to be the case. It is true that the total population of California has continued to grow but that is exclusively the result of illegal immigration. The number of American citizens living in the state follows a downward trend and will continue to do so as residents flee a failing state.

BIG BUSINESS: California has evolved into one of the least business friendly states in the union. Corporations and other big businesses have fled the state in droves and continue to beat a path to other states which welcome them with open arms. High taxation, onerous regulation and an ever increasing cost of living have forced businesses elsewhere. Gone are any number of corporations founded in California that are now headquartered out of state. The record is clear and the exodus continues.

SANCTUARY CITIES: Most certainly the Golden State leads the world in terms of the largest number of sanctuary cities. Such places are set up to allow illegal immigrants to live and work theoretically free from federal pursuit and prosecution. Further, local law enforcement officials are not allowed to ask, let alone determine or act upon, the legal status of people under arrest. There have been instances of the murder of American citizens by illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities here that could have been prevented had federal and local officials been allowed to pursue and deport known criminals allowed to live under sanctuary protection.

EDUCATION: The public school system in this state is in full free fall. With few exceptions, quality education has been abandoned in favor of teachers unions, political correctness, liberal curriculum, trial lawyers and identity group interests. Parents have abandoned and continue to abandon government schools wholesale. Alternative education like charter schools, private schools, parochial schools and home schooling are booming. Several local school districts have gone bankrupt and have been taken over by the state. The drop out rate has mushroomed. High school seniors consistently perform below grade level on standard testing. Worse, an ever growing percentage of freshman entering the California State University system cannot qualify for frosh level English and math courses and must begin in remedial programs. The bad news: it all continues to get worse.

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS: Governments on all levels including state, county and municipal are, in California, wholly owed subsidiaries of the public employee unions. The primary force, although not the exclusive cause, behind the fiscal difficulties of governance here are those unions. Although paid well, regular salary is not the real problem. What drives governments, particularly on the local level, into bankruptcy are the realities of overtime pay, truly off the charts benefit packages (not matched in the private sector) and fabulous retirement compensation. The fact is, our government systems can no longer afford these incredible giveaways to public employees. The pending mandates relative to this issue will, in fact, break the bank for government entities on all levels. It is a disaster in the making that is just around the corner. All the while, keep in mind that California has among the highest tax rates in the country already in place.

The reality is that this liberal Shangra-la is rapidly imploding. Government by unions, special interests, identity groups, liberal Democrat party doctrine, over regulation, over taxation, and Hollywood elites does not work, is in a downward spiral of failure and cannot correct itself as currently composed.

Pay attention America, the rest of you are next.


California budget woes worsens

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's budget crisis is growing worse as its shortfall for its current fiscal year has increased to an estimated $14.8 billion from a previously estimated $11.2 billion, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said on Wednesday.

During a press conference broadcast on his office's website, the Republican governor said he would call top lawmakers into a meeting to stress the need for fast action by the Democrat-led legislature on balancing the budget of the government of the most populous U.S. state because it may be out of cash by the end of February.

Schwarzenegger's new budget shortfall estimate comes a day after state Controller John Chiang reported the state's general fund revenues in November were $1.3 billion, or 18.5 percent, below expectations.

California's shrinking revenues and swelling budget shortfall reflect the severity of its housing downturn, rising unemployment and weak consumer spending as both the state and national economies slow.

Schwarzenegger has urged lawmakers to balance the state's budget with a combination of deep spending cuts and new revenues, including revenues from increasing the state's sales tax.

(Reporting by Jim Christie, Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)

Sphere: Related Content

New flash to our fellow Americans: the times in which we live are far from the worst times to be alive in American history. It will take decades to determine where, on the list of historical priorities, our current circumstances will fall relative to the vast sweep of our national history. But most certainly as things stand right now, the crisis of today comes nowhere near the top three of all time in America.

The many crisis of our past are open to lots of debate as to which among them are the worst of times. The exact priority order of challenging eras can and will be discussed and examined to the end of time. However, the following three will be among those at the very top of most every list. 2008-09 will not, by all current appearances or predictions, ever challenge for the lead or even a position in the top tier. What follows is a reasonable attempt to prioritize the top three worst times in U.S. history.

NUMBER 1: The Civil War Era

It is hard to imagine any worse period in our history than the time surrounding and including the War Between the States. Below, find a brief summary of what those years entailed. Remember that the Civil War often turned family members against each other in an all out shooting war where close to 615,000 Americans were killed. It tore the country apart in ways that took decades of time and effort to mend. There are even some traces of the impact of that time in our society today, close to 150 years later. The turbulence, confusion, death and chaos of that time are unmatched by anything else in our national heritage. The country survived, but only after a massive and mighty struggle to remain intact. The crisis we face today pales by comparison.

NUMBER 2: The American Revolutionary Era

Those were the times that tried men's souls. It was the era of our Founding Fathers. Every American colonist was tested in terms of their loyalties. They were put in the position where they had to choose between independence or continued allegiance to the mother country England. It was when Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately". The Founders gambled both their lives and their fortunes on the cause of independence. The risks were immense, the rewards were unforeseeable, for the most part. The revolutionary war was waged against very steep odds that clearly favored the British. At times, it went so badly that true and dedicated Americans believed that all was lost and the future was impossibly bleak. The outcome is, of course, well known but the people of those years survived in times we cannot today even begin to understand or experience. Nothing in our lives has come even remotely close to that era of revolution and independence.

NUMBER 3: The Era of The Great Depression & The Attack on Pearl Harbor

It is easy to forget that the Great Depression and the start of World War II occurred in tandem. As a matter of fact, it was the war effort, once it kicked into high gear, that finally put an end to the exceedingly hard times experienced across the nation during the economic depression of the 1930's. In 1941, Americans were attacked by a powerful Japanese military machine while they lie weak and vulnerable: victims of widespread bank failures numbering in the thousands, unemployment that reached a peak of 25%, dust bowl forced dislocation, all with no social safety net in place to fall back upon. With an unprecedented "perfect storm" of events on it's hands, the federal government, with the best of intent, often took action that made matters worse. Yet as we know from the history of the time, this nation went on to win that war and emerge as the greatest and most powerful nation on earth. From the worst of times came the best of times.

Americans today wringing their hands over the problems we now face, most of our own making. Many believe we are in the worst time in the history of the country, yet that is nowhere near the truth. No doubt we have our challenges and there are some of our countrymen suffering greatly under the strains of unemployment, bankruptcy and foreclosure. But much of the country goes forward with little disruption of normal daily routines.

It appears that as the year 2008 closes we have experienced the worst of the financial market failures. Further, it seems like we have reached the low point of the equity market reversal. We just might be close to the bottom of the residential real estate market decline. It may be that, at this point in time, those markets have finally begun to stabilize so that they can once again get back on the long road to recovery.

The heart of the difficulty we are facing looks to be unemployment fueled by business failures, company restructuring and the associated decline in the commercial real estate market. A looming threat, that may or may not come to fruition, is the prospect of failure to repay on a meaningful percentage of our massive credit card debt. But in the end, it is the continuing rise in unemployment that underlies our short term woes. The good news: even this shall pass away, over time. Sooner works better than later.

The bottom line: we are in a significant economic recession that could last throughout 2009. There will be plenty of pain and misfortune to go around as we transition into the new Obama administration. Complicating that is the fact that we are in a global fight against terrorism and will remain so for as far forward into the future as can be realistically imagined. Clearly, these are not the best of times.

Equally as clear, our challenges and circumstances are not near as difficult as the worst of times in our history. In my lifetime, America has experienced the Korean War, the Cuban missile crisis, the assassination of a President, the chaos of the 1960's, the Vietnam War debacle, the resignation of a President, multiple large natural disasters, multiple economic downturns and recessions, the rise of the threat of terrorism and 9-11, just to name a few highlights. Some were more damaging or frightening than others. None beat the top three worst of times outlined earlier. On this very day, we are not facing anything worse than what has already been the case here in the United States, including during my tenure on the planet.

The reality is: life happens. And this nation, along with the rest of the world, is not a perfect place.


THE U.S. CIVIL WAR 1861-8165

November 6, 1860 - Abraham Lincoln, who had declared "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free..." is elected president, the first Republican, receiving 180 of 303 possible electoral votes and 40 percent of the popular vote.

Dec 20, 1860 - South Carolina secedes from the Union. Followed within two months by Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas.
Auction and Negro sales, Atlanta, Georgia.

1861
Feb 9, 1861 - The Confederate States of America is formed with Jefferson Davis, a West Point graduate and former U.S. Army officer, as president.
March 4, 1861 - Abraham Lincoln is sworn in as 16th President of the United States of America.

Fort Sumter Attacked
April 12, 1861 - At 4:30 a.m. Confederates under Gen. Pierre Beauregard open fire with 50 cannons upon Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina. The Civil War begins.

April 15, 1861 - President Lincoln issues a Proclamation calling for 75,000 militiamen, and summoning a special session of Congress for July 4.

Robert E. Lee, son of a Revolutionary War hero, and a 25 year distinguished veteran of the United States Army and former Superintendent of West Point, is offered command of the Union Army. Lee declines.

April 17, 1861 - Virginia secedes from the Union, followed within five weeks by Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina, thus forming an eleven state Confederacy with a population of 9 million, including nearly 4 million slaves.
The Union will soon have 21 states and a population of over 20 million.

April 19, 1861 - President Lincoln issues a Proclamation of Blockade against Southern ports. For the duration of the war the blockade limits the ability of the rural South to stay well supplied in its war against the industrialized North.

April 20, 1861 - Robert E. Lee resigns his commission in the United States Army. "I cannot raise my hand against my birthplace, my home, my children." Lee then goes to Richmond, Virginia, is offered command of the military and naval forces of Virginia, and accepts.

July 4, 1861 - Lincoln, in a speech to Congress, states the war is..."a People's contest...a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form, and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men..." The Congress authorizes a call for 500,000 men.

First Bull Run
July 21, 1861 - The Union Army under Gen. Irvin McDowell suffers a defeat at Bull Run 25 miles southwest of Washington. Confederate Gen. Thomas J. Jackson earns the nickname "Stonewall," as his brigade resists Union attacks. Union troops fall back to Washington. President Lincoln realizes the war will be long. "It's damned bad," he comments.

July 27, 1861 - President Lincoln appoints George B. McClellan as Commander of the Department of the Potomac, replacing McDowell.

McClellan tells his wife, "I find myself in a new and strange position here: President, cabinet, Gen. Scott, and all deferring to me. By some strange operation of magic I seem to have become the power of the land."

Sept 11, 1861 - President Lincoln revokes Gen. John C. Frémont's unauthorized military proclamation of emancipation in Missouri. Later, the president relieves Gen. Frémont of his command and replaces him with Gen. David Hunter.

Nov 1, 1861 - President Lincoln appoints McClellan as general-in-chief of all Union forces after the resignation of the aged Winfield Scott. Lincoln tells McClellan, "...the supreme command of the Army will entail a vast labor upon you." McClellan responds, "I can do it all."

Nov 8, 1861 - The beginning of an international diplomatic crisis for President Lincoln as two Confederate officials sailing toward England are seized by the U.S. Navy. England, the leading world power, demands their release, threatening war. Lincoln eventually gives in and orders their release in December. "One war at a time," Lincoln remarks.

1862
Jan 31, 1862 - President Lincoln issues General War Order No. 1 calling for all United States naval and land forces to begin a general advance by Feb 22, George Washington's birthday.

Feb 6, 1862 - Victory for Gen. Ulysses S. Grant in Tennessee, capturing Fort Henry, and ten days later Fort Donelson. Grant earns the nickname "Unconditional Surrender" Grant.

Feb 20, 1862 - President Lincoln is struck with grief as his beloved eleven-year-old son, Willie, dies from fever, probably caused by polluted drinking water in the White House.

March 8/9, 1862 - The Confederate Ironclad 'Merrimac' sinks two wooden Union ships then battles the Union Ironclad 'Monitor' to a draw. Naval warfare is thus changed forever, making wooden ships obsolete. Engraving of the Battle

In March - The Peninsular Campaign begins as McClellan's Army of the Potomac advances from Washington down the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay to the peninsular south of the Confederate Capital of Richmond, Virginia then begins an advance toward Richmond.

President Lincoln temporarily relieves McClellan as general-in-chief and takes direct command of the Union Armies.

Shiloh
April 6/7, 1862 - Confederate surprise attack on Gen. Ulysses S. Grant's unprepared troops at Shiloh on the Tennessee River results in a bitter struggle with 13,000 Union killed and wounded and 10,000 Confederates, more men than in all previous American wars combined. The president is then pressured to relieve Grant but resists. "I can't spare this man; he fights," Lincoln says.

April 24, 1862 - 17 Union ships under the command of Flag Officer David Farragut move up the Mississippi River then take New Orleans, the South's greatest seaport. Later in the war, sailing through a Rebel mine field Farragut utters the famous phrase "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"

May 31, 1862 - The Battle of Seven Pines as Gen. Joseph E. Johnston's Army attacks McClellan's troops in front of Richmond and nearly defeats them. But Johnston is badly wounded.

June 1, 1862 - Gen. Robert E. Lee assumes command, replacing the wounded Johnston. Lee then renames his force the Army of Northern Virginia. McClellan is not impressed, saying Lee is "likely to be timid and irresolute in action."

June 25-July 1 - The Seven Days Battles as Lee attacks McClellan near Richmond, resulting in very heavy losses for both armies. McClellan then begins a withdrawal back toward Washington.

July 11, 1862 - After four months as his own general-in-chief, President Lincoln hands over the task to Gen. Henry W. (Old Brains) Halleck.

Second Battle of Bull Run
Aug 29/30, 1862 - 75,000 Federals under Gen. John Pope are defeated by 55,000 Confederates under Gen. Stonewall Jackson and Gen. James Longstreet at the second battle of Bull Run in northern Virginia. Once again the Union Army retreats to Washington. The president then relieves Pope.

Sept 4-9, 1862 - Lee invades the North with 50,000 Confederates and heads for Harpers Ferry, located 50 miles northwest of Washington.

The Union Army, 90,000 strong, under the command of McClellan, pursues Lee.

Antietam
Sept 17, 1862 - The bloodiest day in U.S. military history as Gen. Robert E. Lee and the Confederate Armies are stopped at Antietam in Maryland by McClellan and numerically superior Union forces. By nightfall 26,000 men are dead, wounded, or missing. Lee then withdraws to Virginia.

Sept 22, 1862 - Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves issued by President Lincoln.

Nov 7, 1862 - The president replaces McClellan with Gen. Ambrose E. Burnside as the new Commander of the Army of the Potomac. Lincoln had grown impatient with McClellan's slowness to follow up on the success at Antietam, even telling him, "If you don't want to use the army, I should like to borrow it for a while."

Fredericksburg
Dec 13, 1862 - Army of the Potomac under Gen. Burnside suffers a costly defeat at Fredericksburg in Virginia with a loss of 12,653 men after 14 frontal assaults on well entrenched Rebels on Marye's Heights. "We might as well have tried to take hell," a Union soldier remarks. Confederate losses are 5,309.
"It is well that war is so terrible - we should grow too fond of it," states Lee during the fighting.

1863
Jan 1, 1863 - President Lincoln issues the final Emancipation Proclamation freeing all slaves in territories held by Confederates and emphasizes the enlisting of black soldiers in the Union Army. The war to preserve the Union now becomes a revolutionary struggle for the abolition of slavery.

Jan 25, 1863 - The president appoints Gen. Joseph (Fighting Joe) Hooker as Commander of the Army of the Potomac, replacing Burnside.

Jan 29, 1863 - Gen. Grant is placed in command of the Army of the West, with orders to capture Vicksburg.

March 3, 1863 - The U.S. Congress enacts a draft, affecting male citizens aged 20 to 45, but also exempts those who pay $300 or provide a substitute. "The blood of a poor man is as precious as that of the wealthy," poor Northerners complain.

Chancellorsville
May 1-4, 1863 - The Union Army under Gen. Hooker is decisively defeated by Lee's much smaller forces at the Battle of Chancellorsville in Virginia as a result of Lee's brilliant and daring tactics. Confederate Gen. Stonewall Jackson is mortally wounded by his own soldiers. Hooker retreats. Union losses are 17,000 killed, wounded and missing out of 130,000. The Confederates, 13, 000 out of 60,000.

"I just lost confidence in Joe Hooker," said Hooker later about his own lack of nerve during the battle.

May 10, 1863 - The South suffers a huge blow as Stonewall Jackson dies from his wounds, his last words, "Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees."

"I have lost my right arm," Lee laments.

June 3, 1863 - Gen. Lee with 75,000 Confederates launches his second invasion of the North, heading into Pennsylvania in a campaign that will soon lead to Gettysburg.

June 28, 1863 - President Lincoln appoints Gen. George G. Meade as commander of the Army of the Potomac, replacing Hooker. Meade is the 5th man to command the Army in less than a year.

Gettysburg
July 1-3, 1863 - The tide of war turns against the South as the Confederates are defeated at the Battle of Gettysburg in Pennsylvania.

Read about the Battle of Gettysburg - Battlefield Photos

July 4, 1863 - Vicksburg, the last Confederate stronghold on the Mississippi River, surrenders to Gen. Grant and the Army of the West after a six week siege. With the Union now in control of the Mississippi, the Confederacy is effectively split in two, cut off from its western allies.

July 13-16, 1863 - Antidraft riots in New York City include arson and the murder of blacks by poor immigrant whites. At least 120 persons, including children, are killed and $2 million in damage caused, until Union soldiers returning from Gettysburg restore order.

July 18, 1863 - 'Negro troops' of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment under Col. Robert G. Shaw assault fortified Rebels at Fort Wagner, South Carolina. Col. Shaw and half of the 600 men in the regiment are killed.

Aug 10, 1863 - The president meets with abolitionist Frederick Douglass who pushes for full equality for Union 'Negro troops.'

Aug 21, 1863 - At Lawrence, Kansas, pro-Confederate William C. Quantrill and 450 proslavery followers raid the town and butcher 182 boys and men.
Chickamauga

Sept 19/20, 1863 - A decisive Confederate victory by Gen. Braxton Bragg's Army of Tennessee at Chickamauga leaves Gen. William S. Rosecrans' Union Army of the Cumberland trapped in Chattanooga, Tennessee under Confederate siege.

Oct 16, 1863 - The president appoints Gen. Grant to command all operations in the western theater.

Nov 19, 1863 - President Lincoln delivers a two minute Gettysburg Address at a ceremony dedicating the Battlefield as a National Cemetery.

Page one of Gettysburg Address in Lincoln's handwritingPage two of Gettysburg Address in Lincoln's handwriting

Chattanooga
Nov 23-25, 1863 - The Rebel siege of Chattanooga ends as Union forces under Grant defeat the siege army of Gen. Braxton Bragg. During the battle, one of the most dramatic moments of the war occurs. Yelling "Chickamauga!
Chickamauga!" Union troops avenge their previous defeat at Chickamauga by storming up the face of Missionary Ridge without orders and sweep the Rebels from what had been though to be an impregnable position. "My God, come and see 'em run!" a Union soldier cries.

1864
March 9, 1864 - President Lincoln appoints Gen. Grant to command all of the armies of the United States. Gen. William T. Sherman succeeds Grant as commander in the west.

May 4, 1864 - The beginning of a massive, coordinated campaign involving all the Union Armies. In Virginia, Grant with an Army of 120,000 begins advancing toward Richmond to engage Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, now numbering 64,000, beginning a war of attrition that will include major battles at the Wilderness (May 5-6), Spotsylvania (May 8-12), and Cold Harbor (June 1-3).

In the west, Sherman, with 100,000 men begins an advance toward Atlanta to engage Joseph E. Johnston's 60,000 strong Army of Tennessee.

Cold Harbor
June 3, 1864 - A costly mistake by Grant results in 7,000 Union casualties in twenty minutes during an offensive against fortified Rebels at Cold Harbor in Virginia.

Many of the Union soldiers in the failed assault had predicted the outcome, including a dead soldier from Massachusetts whose last entry in his diary was, "June 3, 1864, Cold Harbor, Virginia. I was killed."

June 15, 1864 - Union forces miss an opportunity to capture Petersburg and cut off the Confederate rail lines. As a result, a nine month siege of Petersburg begins with Grant's forces surrounding Lee.

July 20, 1864 - At Atlanta, Sherman's forces battle the Rebels now under the command of Gen. John B. Hood, who replaced Johnston.

Aug 29, 1864 - Democrats nominate George B. McClellan for president to run against Republican incumbent Abraham Lincoln.

Sept 2, 1864 - Atlanta is captured by Sherman's Army. "Atlanta is ours, and fairly won," Sherman telegraphs Lincoln. The victory greatly helps President Lincoln's bid for re-election.

Oct 19, 1864 - A decisive Union victory by Cavalry Gen. Philip H. Sheridan in the Shenandoah Valley over Jubal Early's troops.

Nov 8, 1864 - Abraham Lincoln is re-elected president, defeating Democrat George B. McClellan. Lincoln carries all but three states with 55 percent of the popular vote and 212 of 233 electoral votes. "I earnestly believe that the consequences of this day's work will be to the lasting advantage, if not the very salvation, of the country," Lincoln tells supporters.

March to the Sea
Nov 15, 1864 - After destroying Atlanta's warehouses and railroad facilities, Sherman, with 62,000 men begins a March to the Sea. President Lincoln on advice from Grant approved the idea. "I can make Georgia howl!" Sherman boasts.

Dec 15/16, 1864 - Hood's Rebel Army of 23,000 is crushed at Nashville by 55,000 Federals including Negro troops under Gen. George H. Thomas. The Confederate Army of Tennessee ceases as an effective fighting force.

Dec 21, 1864 - Sherman reaches Savannah in Georgia leaving behind a 300 mile long path of destruction 60 miles wide all the way from Atlanta. Sherman then telegraphs Lincoln, offering him Savannah as a Christmas present.

1865
Jan 31, 1865 - The U.S. Congress approves the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, to abolish slavery. The amendment is then submitted to the states for ratification.

Feb 3, 1865 - A peace conference occurs as President Lincoln meets with Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens at Hampton Roads in Virginia, but the meeting ends in failure - the war will continue.

Only Lee's Army at Petersburg and Johnston's forces in North Carolina remain to fight for the South against Northern forces now numbering 280,000 men.

March 4, 1865 - Inauguration ceremonies for President Lincoln in Washington. "With malice toward none; with charity for all...let us strive on to finish the work we are in...to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations," Lincoln says.

March 25, 1865 - The last offensive for Lee's Army of Northern Virginia begins with an attack on the center of Grant's forces at Petersburg. Four hours later the attack is broken.

April 2, 1865 - Grant's forces begin a general advance and break through Lee's lines at Petersburg. Confederate Gen. Ambrose P. Hill is killed. Lee evacuates Petersburg. The Confederate Capital, Richmond, is evacuated. Fires and looting break out. The next day, Union troops enter and raise the Stars and Stripes.
A Confederate boy, age 14, lies dead in the trenches of Fort Mahone at Petersburg.

April 4, 1865 - President Lincoln tours Richmond where he enters the Confederate White House. With "a serious, dreamy expression," he sits at the desk of Jefferson Davis for a few moments.

Lee Surrenders
April 9, 1865 - Gen. Robert E. Lee surrenders his Confederate Army to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at the village of Appomattox Court House in Virginia. Grant allows Rebel officers to keep their sidearms and permits soldiers to keep horses and mules.

"After four years of arduous service marked by unsurpassed courage and fortitude the Army of Northern Virginia has been compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources," Lee tells his troops.

April 10, 1865 - Celebrations break out in Washington.

Lincoln Shot
April 14, 1865 - The Stars and Stripes is ceremoniously raised over Fort Sumter. That night, Lincoln and his wife Mary see the play "Our American Cousin" at Ford's Theater. At 10:13 p.m., during the third act of the play, John Wilkes Booth shoots the president in the head. Doctors attend to the president in the theater then move him to a house across the street. He never regains consciousness.

April 15, 1865 - President Abraham Lincoln dies at 7:22 in the morning. Vice President Andrew Johnson assumes the presidency.

April 18, 1865 - Confederate Gen. Joseph E. Johnston surrenders to Sherman near Durham in North Carolina.

April 26, 1865 - John Wilkes Booth is shot and killed in a tobacco barn in Virginia.

May 4, 1865 - Abraham Lincoln is laid to rest in Oak Ridge Cemetery, outside Springfield, Illinois.

In May - Remaining Confederate forces surrender. The Nation is reunited as the Civil War ends. Over 620,000 Americans died in the war, with disease killing twice as many as those lost in battle. 50,000 survivors return home as amputees.

Dec 6, 1865 - The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, is finally ratified. Slavery is abolished.

Copyright © 1996 The History Place™ All Rights Reserved

Sphere: Related Content

Reading the article below will cause any serious minded person to pause. It speaks to the dangers and threats that exist in the world around us. To ignore that reality is simply ignorant and foolish.

Only those who care not for the future of the nation will downplay the significance of the spread of high technology in a world with access to WMD from a variety of sources. Not getting this message is to not understand human nature. And not to have learned the lessons of history. And not to know that life requires facing up to and dealing with reality, regardless of what one wishes, hopes or feels.

Americans are a peaceful people by nature. We here are not warmongers. When forced to fight to defend ourselves, our allies or our way of life, we will not only fight but we will battle hard. But given our choice, we would prefer the world to be a happy place, where everyone gets along and where, if there is a dispute of some sort, those involved sit down together and work out a solution acceptable to both sides. Americans want to be deal makers, not war makers. We like to share the advantages that we enjoy with the rest of the planet and we desire the ideal of a peaceful world into perpetuity.

The problem is, what we want and the reality of this life are very, very different. Human nature is not all hearts and flowers. The bad news: it appears that although virtually everything else has changed since humans first emerged from caves, human nature has remained the same. There is little prospect that it will change in the foreseeable future. Thus it has been observed that history illustrates that those periods of world peace enjoyed in the past have simply represented the lulls between wars. Humans, by their nature, have a proclivity for war. We can all wish it were not so, but it is and has always been.

Although anti-war sentiment represents a fine and noble goal, hope has no substance while history records the hard truth. Facts, not feelings, will underlie the history of our times. We can all hope and pray for peace but we had better, all the while, prepare for attack from those who wholly dislike, even hate, who we are and what we stand for in this world. Remember what those who fight have testified to for a very long time, "Only the dead have seen the end of war".

All of which brings us to our current circumstances. Candidate Obama ran on an anti-war, anti-military funding, anti-missile defense platform. He received wide support from his supporters for that stance. Many believe he will implement this portion of his platform once he is in office. Yet, as explained below, the threat is real and the potential outcomes of that threat are both frightening and unacceptable. So where are we?

Since becoming President-Elect, one of Obama's new daily routines is a complete national security briefing. He is now privy to the same information that is provided to George Bush as to the state of the world. Such briefings are not a matter of theory or hope. They represent a regular snapshot of the hard reality of a dangerous, threatening and, in some instances, hostile world.

It is not the catchy sound bites common to campaigning. It is not the mesmerizing rhetoric of hope or change. It is what Obama will have to deal with as POTUS, each and every day, beginning on the afternoon of January 20, 2009. On that day, the opportunity for finger pointing will have passed and from that time forward the proverbial buck will stop with him.

Expect that there will be a decided difference between Obama the campaigner and Obama the President. When the responsibility for the welfare of a nation with over 300 million people falls upon his shoulders alone, it will have a very sobering effect. We are at war and will be when he assumes office. That will continue to go forward, although Obama may adjust the priorities.

Terrorists will continue to target our homeland, our people, our allies and our overseas interests. The new President will have to continue on with most all of the things we do now to protect all of those interests. He may initiate and follow through on a promise of more contact with our enemies, but that will not change the threats in the near future or the hard realities of the world.

Missile defense? What Obama will choose remains to be seen. But we can all take some solace in the fact that as President he will receive far more detailed and harrowing information than this article presents. At the end of the day, it is hard to believe that a President Obama will leave American society open to and vulnerable to utter destruction.

We hope! It is a matter of do or die.


What a Single Nuclear Warhead Could Do
Why the U.S. needs a space-based missile defense against an EMP attack.
By BRIAN T. KENNEDY

As severe as the global financial crisis now is, it does not pose an existential threat to the U.S. Through fits and starts we will sort out the best way to revive the country's economic engine. Mistakes can be tolerated, however painful. The same may not be true with matters of national security.

Although President George W. Bush has accomplished more in the way of missile defense than his predecessors -- including Ronald Reagan -- he will leave office with only a rudimentary system designed to stop a handful of North Korean missiles launched at our West Coast. Barack Obama will become commander in chief of a country essentially undefended against Russian, Chinese, Iranian or ship-launched terrorist missiles. This is not acceptable.

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have proven how vulnerable we are. On that day, Islamic terrorists flew planes into our buildings. It is not unreasonable to believe that if they obtain nuclear weapons, they might use them to destroy us.
And yet too many policy makers have rejected three basic facts about our position in the world today:

First, as the defender of the Free World, the U.S. will be the target of destruction or, more likely, strategic marginalization by Russia, China and the radical Islamic world.

Second, this marginalization and threat of destruction is possible because the U.S. is not so powerful that it can dictate military and political affairs to the world whenever it wants. The U.S. has the nuclear capability to vanquish any foe, but is not likely to use it except as a last resort.

Third, America will remain in a condition of strategic vulnerability as long as it fails to build defenses against the most powerful political and military weapons arrayed against us: ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Such missiles can be used to destroy our country, blackmail or paralyze us.

Any consideration of how best to provide for the common defense must begin by acknowledging these facts.

Consider Iran. For the past decade, Iran -- with the assistance of Russia, China and North Korea -- has been developing missile technology. Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani announced in 2004 their ability to mass produce the Shahab-3 missile capable of carrying a lethal payload to Israel or -- if launched from a ship -- to an American city.

The current controversy over Iran's nuclear production is really about whether it is capable of producing nuclear warheads. This possibility is made more urgent by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement in 2005: "Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved."

Mr. Ahmadinejad takes seriously, even if the average Iranian does not, radical Islam's goal of converting, subjugating or destroying the infidel peoples -- first and foremost the citizens of the U.S. and Israel. Even after 9/11, we appear not to take that threat seriously. We should.

Think about this scenario: An ordinary-looking freighter ship heading toward New York or Los Angeles launches a missile from its hull or from a canister lowered into the sea. It hits a densely populated area. A million people are incinerated. The ship is then sunk. No one claims responsibility. There is no firm evidence as to who sponsored the attack, and thus no one against whom to launch a counterstrike.

But as terrible as that scenario sounds, there is one that is worse. Let us say the freighter ship launches a nuclear-armed Shahab-3 missile off the coast of the U.S. and the missile explodes 300 miles over Chicago. The nuclear detonation in space creates an electromagnetic pulse (EMP).

Gamma rays from the explosion, through the Compton Effect, generate three classes of disruptive electromagnetic pulses, which permanently destroy consumer electronics, the electronics in some automobiles and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, water-pumping stations, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication and no ability to provide food and water to 300 million Americans.

This is what is referred to as an EMP attack, and such an attack would effectively throw America back technologically into the early 19th century. It would require the Iranians to be able to produce a warhead as sophisticated as we expect the Russians or the Chinese to possess. But that is certainly attainable. Common sense would suggest that, absent food and water, the number of people who could die of deprivation and as a result of social breakdown might run well into the millions.

Let us be clear. A successful EMP attack on the U.S. would have a dramatic effect on the country, to say the least. Even one that only affected part of the country would cripple the economy for years. Dropping nuclear weapons on or retaliating against whoever caused the attack would not help. And an EMP attack is not far-fetched.

Twice in the last eight years, in the Caspian Sea, the Iranians have tested their ability to launch ballistic missiles in a way to set off an EMP. The congressionally mandated EMP Commission, with some of America's finest scientists, has released its findings and issued two separate reports, the most recent in April, describing the devastating effects of such an attack on the U.S.

The only solution to this problem is a robust, multi layered missile-defense system. The most effective layer in this system is in space, using space-based interceptors that destroy an enemy warhead in its ascent phase when it is easily identifiable, slower, and has not yet deployed decoys. We know it can work from tests conducted in the early 1990s. We have the technology. What we lack is the political will to make it a reality.

An EMP attack is not one from which America could recover as we did after Pearl Harbor. Such an attack might mean the end of the United States and most likely the Free World. It is of the highest priority to have a president and policy makers not merely acknowledge the problem, but also make comprehensive missile defense a reality as soon as possible.

Mr. Kennedy is president of the Claremont Institute and a member of the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense

Sphere: Related Content

The story that follows is the actual history of this important holiday that our kids will never hear in school. As is often the case, if the truth is inconvenient to the social agenda of educators, the children in the classroom will be presented with a distorted picture of the facts or they will be presented with nothing at all.

Politically correct leftist propaganda is the pablum that our students are fed. It is up to the rest of us to provide the actual story while regularly reminding our children not to believe everything they learn in school, especially relative to social studies, social issues, the environment and politics.

Educating children about their teachers and their schools is a role parents must play in the modern world. It is a sad story but it must be done.

Enjoy the history. Unlike what is taught in school, this one includes references and historical links. Have a safe and happy holiday. We are a blessed people.


The True Thanksgiving Story
by Dennis Rupert

It seems that every year we are treated to articles attempting to disprove the "myth of Thanksgiving." In these articles we are told that:

the Pilgrims weren't the first people in America to hold a thanksgiving
that the first thanksgiving had no religious significance at all, but was merely a harvest festival that our traditional Thanksgiving dinner has nothing in common with the Pilgrim's meal.

Some of these accusations are not a serious concern. After all, who cares if the Pilgrims served cranberries or not? But what seems to lie behind some of these articles is a desire to devalue the religious nature of our present Thanksgiving holiday. This is unfortunate since Thanksgiving is one of the few holidays on the America calendar that is not swept away with commercialism or mixed with pagan elements.

So here is "The True Thanksgiving Story." We have included references to primary sources which you can read for yourself. After reading I believe that you will still be able to eat your turkey with a happy stomach and a grateful heart to God.

Who observed the first Thanksgiving?

Okay, it wasn't the Pilgrims. Of course, native Americans celebrated many thanksgiving festivals before Europeans ever arrived in America. For example, the Wampanoag (Indian allies of the Pilgrims) held six thanksgiving festivals during the year.

The first recorded Christian thanksgiving in America occurred in Texas on May 23, 1541 when Spanish explorer, Francisco Vasquez de Coronado, and his men held a service of thanksgiving after finding food, water, and pasture for their animals in the Panhandle.

Another thanksgiving service occurred on June 30, 1564 when French Huguenot colonists celebrated in solemn praise and thanksgiving in a settlement near what is now Jacksonville, Florida.

On August 9, 1607 English settlers led by Captain George Popham joined Abnaki Indians along Maine's Kennebec River for a harvest feast and prayer meeting. The colonists, living under the Plymouth Company charter, established Fort St. George around the same time as the founding of Virginia's Jamestown colony. Unlike Jamestown, however, this site was abandoned a year later.

Two years before the Pilgrims on December 4, 1619, a group of 38 English settlers arrived at Berkeley Plantation in what is now Charles City, Virginia. The group's charter required that the day of arrival be observed yearly as a day of thanksgiving to God. Captain John Woodleaf held the service of thanksgiving. Here is the section of the Charter of Berkley Plantation which specifies the thanksgiving service:

"Wee ordaine that the day of our ships arrival at the place assigned for plantacon in the land of Virginia shall be yearly and perpetually keept holy as a day of thanksgiving to Almighty god."

In addition to 1619, the colonists perhaps held service in 1620 and 1621. The colony was wiped out in 1622. It was a private event, limited to the Berkeley settlement.

Thus Spanish, French and British colonists held several Thanksgiving services in America before the Pilgrim's celebration in 1621. Most of these early thanksgivings did not involve feasting. They were religious in nature, i.e. worship services of thankfulness to God.

What about the Pilgrim's Thanksgiving?

In a children's book called The First Thanksgiving, the author, Jean Craighead George says, the Pilgrims left Europe "to seek their fortune in the New World."1
That would have come as news to the Pilgrims themselves. Pilgrim leader William Bradford wrote in his diary that the voyage was motivated by "a great hope for advancing the kingdom of Christ."

The Pilgrims set aground at Plymouth Rock on December 11, 1620. Their first winter was devastating. Weakened by the seven-week crossing and the need to establish housing, they came down with pneumonia and consumption. They began to die -- one per day, then two, and sometimes three. They dug the graves at night, so that the Indians would not see how their numbers were dwindling. At one point, there were only seven persons able to fetch wood, make fires, and care for the sick. By the spring, they had lost 46 of the original 102 who sailed on the Mayflower.2

The Pilgrims obviously needed help and it came from an English-speaking member of the Wampanoag nation, Squanto. Squanto decided to stay with the Pilgrims for the next few months and teach them how to survive. He brought them food and skins, taught them how to cultivate new vegetables and how to build Indian-style houses. He educated the Pilgrims on poisonous plants, medicine, how to get sap from the maple trees, use fish for fertilizer, and dozens of other skills needed for their survival.

The harvest of 1621 was a bountiful one and the remaining colonists decided to celebrate with a feast. The author of The First Thanksgiving states, "This was not a day of Pilgrim thanksgiving." Instead, she writes, "This was pure celebration."3 This is the type of subtle statement that often occurs in reading about the Pilgrim's first thanksgiving. It is not based on factual history, however. One can only guess at the motives of people who write such things, but statements like this appear to be motivated by a desire to rob the event of any religious meaning.

It is quite true that the word "thanksgiving" is not used in referring to the feast. Much is made of this by secular authors who attempt to reinterpret the Pilgrim thanksgiving. But the only letter that we have telling us about the first Thanksgiving praises God for the harvest, makes reference to the "goodness of God" in providing for them, and says that the feast was held so that they "might after a special manner rejoice together."4

That sounds like a Thanksgiving feast to me! (See the link to Primary Sources below.)

Another author states: "In fact, the colonists didn't even call the day Thanksgiving. To them, a thanksgiving was a religious holiday in which they would go to church and thank God for a specific event, such as the winning of a battle. On such a religious day, the types of recreational activities that the pilgrims and Wampanoag Indians participated in during the 1621 harvest feast--dancing, singing secular songs, playing games--wouldn't have been allowed. The feast was a secular celebration, so it never would have been considered a thanksgiving in the pilgrims minds."5

A "secular" celebration? Not a "religious" celebration? That all depends on how you define "secular" and "religious." If "religious" celebration can only happen in a church building, then yes, the Pilgrim's thanksgiving was not a religious celebration because it was not a church service. But this certainly misunderstands the mindset of Pilgrims who were steeped in the idea of all life being "religious" and under the providential hand of God. And it certainly is not the way Christians use the term "religious" today. The author is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation (to change the meaning of a key word in order to make your point). The letter which describes the event says "God be praised" and refers to "the "goodness of God." These are not secular statements. Read the letter and decide for yourself.

The event occurred between September 21 and November 11, 1621, with the most likely time being around Michaelmas (September 29), the traditional time for English harvest homes. The settlers asked Squanto and the leader of the Wampanoags, Massasoit, to bring their immediate family and to dine with them. The English had no idea how large Indian families could be and Squanto and Massasoit arrived accompanied by 90 relatives. The feast lasted three days - not just one day as our present Thanksgiving. The Pilgrims and Indians ate outdoors at large tables and competed together in tests of skill and strength.6

Governor William Bradford sent "four men fowling" after wild ducks, geese, and turkey.7 The warriors brought five deer. The feast probably consisted of the following items (constructed from original sources and historical research by the Plimoth Plantation):

Seethed [boiled] LobsterRoasted GooseBoiled TurkeyFricase of ConeyPudding of Indian Corn Meal with dried WhortleberriesSeethed CodRoasted DuckStewed PumpkinRoasted Venison with Mustard SauceSavory Pudding of HominyFruit and Holland Cheese

Were there other thanksgiving feasts held by the Pilgrims?

The Pilgrim's first thanksgiving feast was not repeated the following year. In the third year, when many of them had become preoccupied with cultivating more land, and building on to their houses, and planting extra corn for trading with the Indians, they were stricken by a prolonged drought. Week followed week with no rain, until even the Indians had no recollection of such a thing ever happening before. The sun-blasted corn withered on its stalks and became tinder dry, and beneath it the ground cracked open and was so powdery that any normal rain would be of little use. And still the heavens were as brass.

Finally, in July, Governor Bradford called a council of the chief men. It was obvious that God was withholding the rain for a reason, and they had better find out why. Bradford declared a day of fasting, humiliation and prayer, and they gathered in their blockhouse church and began to search their hearts. It turned out that even these 'saints', had things to repent for -- spiritual pride, jealousy, vindictiveness, and greed, as well as a number of broken relationships.
One after another, as they became convicted, they asked God's forgiveness and that of their fellow Pilgrims.

A tender, peaceful spirit grew among them and was enhanced as each hour passed. Late in the afternoon, as they emerged from the blockhouse, the sky which that morning had been hard and clear (as it had been every morning for nearly two months), was now covered with clouds all around them. The following morning, it began to rain -- a gentle rain that continued on and off for fourteen days straight. Writing of it, Bradford said:

"It came, without either wind, or thunder, or any violence, and by degreese in yt abundance, as that ye earth was thorowly wete and soked therwith. Which did so apparently revive & quicken ye decayed corne & other fruits, as was wonderfull to see, and made ye Indeans astonished to behold; and afterwards the Lord sent them shuch seasonable showers, with enterchange of faire warme weather, as, through his blessing, caused a fruitfull & liberall harvest, to their no small comforte and rejoycing."

Their harvest that fall, was so abundant that they ended up with a surplus -- to the benefit of Indians to the north who had not had a good growing season. To everyone's delight, the Governor "sett aparte a day of thanksgiveing" and apparently once again invited Chief Massasoit and his braves to eat with them.8

A generation later, after the balance of power had shifted to the English settlers, the Indian and White children of that first Thanksgiving were striving to kill each other in the conflict known as King Philip's War. The settlers prevailed and in June of 1676 another Day of Thanksgiving was proclaimed. The governing council of Charlestown, Massachusetts, held a meeting to determine how best to express thanks for the victories in "Warr with the Heathen Natives of this land." By unanimous vote they instructed Edward Rawson, the clerk, to proclaim June 29 as a day of thanksgiving. The following is part of that proclamation:

"The Council has thought meet to appoint and set apart the 29th day of this instant June, as a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favour, many Particulars of which mercy might be Instanced, but we doubt not those who are sensible of God's Afflictions, have been as diligent to espy him returning to us; and that the Lord may behold us as a People offering Praise and thereby glorifying Him; the Council doth commend it to the Respective Ministers, Elders and people of this Jurisdiction; Solemnly and seriously to keep the same Beseeching that being persuaded by the mercies of God we may all, even this whole people offer up our bodies and souls as a living and acceptable Service unto God by Jesus Christ."

Was Thanksgiving practiced during the early days of the United States?
December 18, 1777 marked the first time that all 13 colonies joined in a thanksgiving celebration. It commemorated the patriotic victory over the British at Saratoga:

"It is therefore recommended by Congress, that Thursday the 18th. day of December next be set apart for Solemn Thanksgiving and Praise; that at one time, and with one voice, the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor; and that, together with their sincere acknowledgements and offerings they may join the penitent confession of their sins; and supplications for such further blessings as they stand in need of."

President George Washington proclaimed a National Day of Thanksgiving for November 26, 1789 to honor the formation of the United States government. His proclamation called for a day of prayer and giving thanks to God. It was to be celebrated by all religious denominations, but discord among the colonies prevented it from being practiced by all the states. Washington wrote in his November 26th diary entry: "Being the day appointed for a thanksgiving I went to St. Paul's Chapel though it was most inclement and stormy--but few people at Church." President Washington later provided money, food, and beer to debtors spending the holiday in a New York City jail.

Thanksgiving failed to become an annual tradition at this time. Only Presidents Washington, Adams, and Madison declared national days of thanks in their terms. Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams considered the practice to infringe upon the separation of church and state. During the War of 1812, President Madison proclaimed three days of fasting and prayer in response to Congressional requests (August 20, 1812, September 9, 1813, and January 12, 1815). He was the last president to call for a national thanksgiving until Abraham Lincoln in 1863. Governors, on the other hand--particularly in the New England states, regularly issued proclamations of thanksgiving.

How did Thanksgiving become a yearly national practice?

It was Sarah Josepha Hale, a magazine editor, whose efforts eventually led to what we recognize as Thanksgiving. Hale wrote many editorials championing her cause in her Boston Ladies' Magazine, and later, in Godey's Lady's Book. She was fired with the determination of having the whole nation join together in setting apart a national day for giving thanks "unto Him from who all blessings flow."

In 1830, New York proclaimed an official state "Thanksgiving Day." Other states soon followed its example. The Territory of Minnesota celebrated its first Thanksgiving Day on December 26, 1850. The whole territory, including all of what is now the State of Minnesota plus the Dakotas as far west as the Missouri River, contained approximately 6,000 settlers but the book, The Frontier Holiday, describes a spirited celebration. Territory Governor, Alexander Ramsey, proclaimed the day of thanks:

"Young in years as a community, we have come into the wilderness, in the midst of savage men and uncultivated nature to found a new empire in aid of our pursuit of happiness, and to extend the area of enlightened republican Liberty . . . . Let us in the public temple of religion, by the fireside and family altar, on the prairie and in the forest, join in the expression of our gratitude, of our devotion to the God who brought our fathers safely through the perils of an early revolution, and who thus continues his favors to the remotest colonies of his sons."

By 1852, Hale's campaign succeeded in uniting 29 states in marking the last Thursday of November as "Thanksgiving Day."

Finally, after a 40-year campaign of writing editorials and letters to governors and presidents, Hale's passion became a reality. On September 28, 1863, Sarah Josepha Hale wrote a letter to President Lincoln and urged him to have the "day of our annual Thanksgiving made a National and fixed Union Festival." On October 3, 1863, President Lincoln proclaimed the last Thursday in November as a national day "of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father." Here is the text of Lincoln's proclamation:

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. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.9

Lincoln issued a similar proclamation in 1864. U.S. presidents maintained the holiday on the last Thursday of November for 75 years (with the exception of Andrew Johnson designating the first Thursday in December as Thanksgiving Day 1865 and Ulysses Grant choosing the third Thursday for Thanksgiving Day 1869).

In 1939, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declare the next-to-last Thursday of the month (November 23rd) to be Thanksgiving Day. This break with tradition was prompted by requests from the National Retail Dry Goods Association. Since 1939 had five Thursdays in November, this would create a longer Christmas shopping season. While governors usually followed the president's lead with state proclamations for the same day, on this year, twenty-three states observed Thanksgiving Day on November 23rd, the "Democratic" Thanksgiving. Twenty-three states celebrated on November 30th, Lincoln's "Republican" Thanksgiving. Texas and Colorado declared both Thursdays to be holidays.After two years of public outcry and confusion, Congress introduced the legislation to ensure that future presidential proclamations could not impact the scheduling of the holiday.. They established Thanksgiving Day as the fourth Thursday in November. The legislation took effect in 1942. Their plan to designate the fourth Thursday of the month allowed Thanksgiving Day to fall on the last Thursday five out of seven years.

Thanksgiving and Christians

There are those who want to remove any thought of God from our Thanksgiving celebrations. They wish to secularize the holiday and they reinvent history to attempt to prove their point. But it is evident from reading primary sources that Thanksgiving in America was always about giving thanks to God.

It is a Christian command and privilege to be grateful for the blessings of God (Deuteronomy 8:10; Psalm 107:19,21; Colossians 1:12-14; Philippians 1:3). Our Thanksgiving celebration is a wonderful reminder to "give thanks to the Lord, for He is good. His love endures forever" (1 Chronicles 16:34).

The Rev. Benjamin Arnett was a prominent African American cleric in the Ohio AME Church. He preached a Thanksgiving sermon during the centennial of our nation on November 30, 1876. His sermon is a beautiful expression of gratitude to God for national blessings and a call to continue to pursue righteousness for ourselves and our nation (Proverbs 14:34):

Following the tracks of righteousness throughout the centuries and along the way of nations, we are prepared to recommend it to all and assert without a shadow of doubt, that 'Righteousness exalted a nation'; but on the other hand following the foot-prints of sin amid the ruins of Empires and remains of cities, we will say that 'sin is a reproach to any people.' But we call on all American citizens to love their country, and look not on the sins of the past, but arming ourselves for the conflict of the future, girding ourselves in the habiliments of Righteousness, march forth with the courage of a Numidian lion and with the confidence of a Roman Gladiator, and meet the demands of the age, and satisfy the duties of the hour.

Let us be encouraged in our work, for we have found the moccasin track of Righteousness all along the shore of the stream of life, constantly advancing holding humanity with a firm hand. We have seen it 'through' all the confusion of rising and falling States, of battle, siege and slaughter, of victory and defeat; through the varying fortunes and ultimate extinctions of Monarchies, Republics and Empires; through barbaric irruption and desolation, feudal isolation, spiritual supremacy, the heroic rush and conflict of the Cross and Crescent; amid the busy hum of industry, through the marts of trade and behind the gliding keels of commerce.

And in America, the battle-field of modern thought, we can trace the foot-prints of the one and the tracks of the other. So let us use all of our available forces, and especially our young men, and throw them into the conflict of the Right against the Wrong.

Then let the grand Centennial Thanksgiving song be heard and sung in every house of God; and in every home may thanksgiving sounds be heard, for our race has been emancipated, enfranchised and are now educating, and have the gospel preached to them!

1 Jean Craighead George, The First Thanksgiving, (New York: Philomel Books, 1993).
2 Of Plimoth Plantation by William Bradford, original manuscript, written 1647, (1901 Edition).
3 Jean Craighead George, The First Thanksgiving., (New York: Philomel Books, 1993).
4 Edward Winslow's letter, written December 11, 1621.
5 James Baker, Mayflower Myths, http://www.history.com/minisites/thanksgiving/viewPage?pageId=874.
6 Edward Winslow's letter, written December 11, 1621.
7 William Bradford's comments about the harvest from Of Plimoth Plantation by William Bradford.
8 Of Plimoth Plantation by William Bradford, original manuscript, written 1647, (1901 Edition).
9 The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler.

See also:
Primary Sources for the Pilgrims' Thanksgiving
Governor Bradford's Alleged Thanksgiving Proclamation
George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation
Thanksgiving Timeline!

Sphere: Related Content

What seems to get lost in our current economic chaos are the important lessons of the past. Long ago while in the midst of a national economic based panic, President Franklin Roosevelt spoke those oft repeated and little attended to famous words, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". It was true in his time, has been true throughout history and is just as true today. After all, the bottom line is that he was addressing human nature and that has not changed much since man came out of caves.

Leadership requires that the problem gets clearly identified so that everyone knows what we must deal with going forward. Effective leadership thereafter focuses the attention of all involved on identifying and implementing solutions, not focusing on the problem. Attention must be cast forward in order to seek out answers, not backward where the problem lies. The lead dog always looks ahead so that a workable path can be discovered.

So what does our current administration, Congress, Presidential candidates, big biased media, TV pundits and the usual crowd of naysayers do when an economic crisis hits? Not what quality leaders do by a long shot. Few among them clearly defined the problem but almost all of them focused on the problem. Consider how difficult it is to repair a problem when it is not clearly understood. Then note the wild scatter shot approach to finding answers. As government often does and as politicians always do, when there is a problem, just throw money at it and it will go away. In other words, throw everything within reach against the wall and hope something sticks. That's not leadership, that is guesswork at it's least effective.

That kind of leadership only feeds the fire of panic and fear which in turn only further exacerbates the problem. In other words, our "leaders" make the problem worse rather than better by not doing what is required of successful leaders. Instead of standing up, clearly defining the problem and thereafter reminding Americans across the board of our performance history when faced with overwhelming challenges, they simply run around in circles trying every idea that seems worthy, hoping all along that the latest effort will end the problem. When it doesn't, it leaves the public far less confident in their capabilities as it becomes more obvious that our "leaders" have no idea as to what they are doing. Instead of a reasoned, common sense approach to solutions based upon a real understanding of the problem, we have gotten noting more than a severe case of the blind leading the blind.

Making matters worse, we have "loose lips sink ships" politicians who are so drawn to cameras and microphones to service their massive egos and endless vanity that they speak without informing their words with any thought or foresight. So Senator Chuck Schumer flaps his always open mouth about Indy Mac Bank and drives a panic that puts that company out of business. Proving to be an even greater fool, Democrat Senate "leader" Harry Reid makes unnecessary and ill advised public remarks about a failing insurance company, causing investors to abandon that industry like a crowd trying to flee a fire inside a packed theatre. These are not leaders, these are losers. They are not public servants, they are public subversives. And they are not alone among their peers in Congress, the administration and elsewhere.

The bottom line: politics does not attract the best and the brightest. Instead it turns out most often to be a bunch of self-serving lawyers (sorry for the obvious repetition) who are educated in the law but have no clue how to lead.

Obviously, none are so valuable as to be held over in their positions to further destroy the public interest. We are a nation with pretenders, not leaders, in political office.


Government Fear Itself
Potential bank investors don't want to be 'AIG-ed.'

Amid economic fear and uncertainty, many Americans naturally look to government for reassurance. But with its vast power and potential to harm, government can itself become a source of panic. This has happened too often in recent days as Americans and the world have finally awakened to the scale of the losses in the banking system.

The Federal Reserve and Treasury have both taken extraordinary actions in the last year to prevent large-scale financial damage. Some of that we have supported, including the recent Treasury authority to spend as much as $700 billion to shore up financial institutions. But how these proposals are presented and executed also matters if they're going to reassure people and markets. This week's stock market carnage is evidence of the danger when they frighten instead.

One problem is reckless news leaks of potential policy actions, some of them far-reaching, without adequate thought or public explanation. Take Friday morning's reports, presumably leaked by Treasury, that the federal government might insure all bank deposits. This would be no small matter. Until recently the feds insured deposits only up to $100,000 per account, and last month it raised that to $250,000. Ensuring all deposits would add another $1.9 trillion in taxpayer guarantees.

It isn't clear, however, that insuring all deposits would do much more to reassure most retail savers, who have largely stayed calm. There have been runs on individual banks but so far not runs across the system. Yet leaking the possibility of such a policy change is the kind of thoughtless action that could well incite such a run.

There's also the problem of what such a policy could mean for deposits held outside the banking system. What about the danger of flight from General Electric's credit subsidiaries if money rushes to the relative safety of bank deposits? It might also cause problems for money-market funds, whose deposits are only insured if they were made before September 19. Treasury decided to insure money-market deposits precisely to prevent a run on those funds that in turn had caused damaging redemptions in the commercial paper market. Media trial balloons are a Washington pastime, but in a global financial panic they may only compound the fear.

Recapitalization Recap
The Public Deserves a Better Deal 09/26/2008 – By John Paulson
There's No Easy Way Out of the Bubble 10/09/2008 – By Vernon L. Smith
We Need to Recapitalize the Banks 10/01/2008 – By Edmund S. Phelps

A similar lack of transparency has marred the execution of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or Tarp. Secretary Hank Paulson first sold the proposal as a way to buy troubled bank securities via an auction, though it quickly became clear that Treasury hadn't thought about it very deeply. We supported Tarp nonetheless as a fund that could be deployed in many ways to shore up the financial system, and sure enough this week Mr. Paulson floated the idea of injecting public capital directly into financial institutions.

In contrast to the British, however, Treasury couldn't explain how this would work, who would be eligible, or even when it would take place. Amid this policy vacuum, rumors quickly spread that Treasury might "nationalize" the banks.
This isn't what anyone we know in government has in mind, and it would be disastrous if it happened. But it's unsurprising if people believe it in a panic, especially absent any details and in the wake of the government's recent "bailout" of AIG.

In retrospect, the AIG seizure has also undermined confidence by looking both arbitrary and punitive. The loan terms were so onerous -- requiring the company to pay more than 10% interest even on money it doesn't borrow but might in the future -- that this week the New York Fed had to bail out the bailout. It extended another $38 billion on top of the original $85 billion, while AIG now must sell its healthy insurance assets at fire sale prices. No one wants to put private capital into a bank if it might be "AIG-ed."

Using the Tarp to help recapitalize the banks still has much to recommend it, and the idea has been endorsed in some form on these pages by financier John Paulson, Nobel economic laureates Vernon Smith and Edmund Phelps -- and by us. This has to be done carefully without savaging current (and especially) future shareholders. But doing this quickly in specific cases would have a salutary effect on confidence as it becomes clear that sound banks can't be run out of business merely by a stampede of fear.

Such a capital stand might be especially useful now as a way to shore up Morgan Stanley, which is under siege as investors worry over the fate of its planned $9 billion capital injection by Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group. A successful stand would also go a long way to unlocking the interbank lending market.

Our point here isn't to play Saturday morning second-guesser. Mr. Paulson and the staff at Treasury and the Fed are working night and day, and they must make decisions in real time while dodging real bullets. But they also now have all of the tools they need to stabilize the banking system, if they use them well.
Most Americans have only recently discovered how serious this threat to the economy is. No wonder they're scared. Mr. Paulson or Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke need to explain what they are doing, and why it will lead to a better, more stable financial system.

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Sphere: Related Content

In an example of the ultimate irony, a longtime member of the Congressional Black Caucus has verbalized clear and unmistakable racism in an open forum for all to hear.

Florida Representative Alcee Hastings may or may not be a racist at his core but one thing for sure can be said about his remarks reported in the article below: the words are verbal racism pure and simple.

If this life is to be a level playing field, it is not OK for anyone to practice blatant racism regardless of their race, color or ethnicity. More importantly, it is even less acceptable for anyone on the public dole, who is a public servant, to mouth such hateful, racially offensive statements.

It is not necessary to go very far out on a limb to guess that Hastings has never met and does not know Governor Palin. He would have no more clue than the rest of us as to who she is, what she believes, how she has lived her life or her views about race and ethnicity. The only thing we all know for sure, including Hastings, is that Governor Palin is a married white Alaska born woman with five children.

For Hastings to claim or infer that he knows, and therefore blacks and Jews must also know, that "Anyone toting guns and stripping Moose don't care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks" is making a racist contention on it's face. Not to mention it is small, rude, stupid, wrong and poor usage of the English language. Most importantly, it is a all out insult on the intelligence of Jews and blacks.

Worse yet, consider that Hastings attended three different universities, earned a law degree and served as a judge in a circuit court in Florida (what the heck goes on in the Sunshine State?). A JUDGE! He sounds more like a fool than a jurist. However, considering he is a lawyer, we should not be too surprised.

Note his use of the English language. The statement quoted earlier is not that of a distinguished well educated thoughtful man, it is street language clearly designed to make a race based, emotionally manipulative appeal to blacks and Jews for unashamed political outcomes.

Hastings is another in the long line of political hacks that occupies space in the House of Reprehensibles. Like most others there, he is a waste of time and space as well as an embarrassment to himself, his family, his state and this nation.

Racism is as racism does.


Florida Congressman: Palin 'Don't Care Too Much What They Do With Jews and Blacks'
Rigel Anderson

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: Florida Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings pointed to Sarah Palin on Wednesday to rally Jews to Obama.

"If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention," said Hastings. "Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through."

Hastings, who is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, made his comments in Washington, D.C., while participating in a panel discussion sponsored by the National Jewish Democratic Council.

Asked what the congressman meant, Hastings spokesman David Goldenberg told ABC News that he was trying to argue that Palin is an "extremely conservative woman who is out of touch with mainstream America."

After saying that Palin "don't care too much" about Jews and blacks, Hastings argued that African Americans and Jews should come together behind Obama because there are many issues on which they agree.

"Just like Jews, blacks care about affordable health care, energy independence, and the separation of church and state," said Hastings. "And just like blacks, Jews care about equal pay for equal work, investment in alternative energy, and a woman's right to choose."

Asked about the Hastings criticism, Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said, "We’re taking a pass."

Sphere: Related Content

This post goes with a major credit to regular site visitor JT. He sent along the following "test" to see if an often disengaged public can decide who fits the description below. Understand that this information is probably somewhat dated and will not reflect accurate numbers for this very day but it is close enough to get across the point of the exercise. Put on your thinking caps and proceed.

Is The Following From The NBA Or The NFL?

36: Have been accused of spousal abuse

7: Have been arrested for fraud

19: Have been accused of writing bad checks

117: Have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least two businesses

3: Have done time for assault

71: Cannot get a credit card due to bad credit

14: Have been arrested on drug related charges

8: Have been arrested for shoplifting

21: Currently are defendants in lawsuits

84: Have been arrested for drunk driving in recent time


CAN YOU GUESS WHICH ORGANIZATION THIS DESCRIBES?

Click Here For The Answer

I am tired of these people!

The partisan gamesmanship between our lead political parties has, in the toxic political environment of our nation's capital, become a higher priority to our elected officials than the welfare of the people they represent. Washington is more than broken, it is now pure poison for the American people.

The article that follows details the move by lead Senate Democrat pols to block a non-binding vote in support of our troops in Iraq and the success they have achieved through the now completed surge. It is widely recognized not only here at home but around the world that the our troop surge in Iraq was an important factor in the turn around of America's fortunes in that prolonged fight.

But the far left and their Washington Senate minions refuse to acknowledge the obvious and the widely accepted facts on the ground. Pure political partisanship is the reason why these self-serving radicals will not allow others to vote. Keep in mind that voting is at the heart of our representative republic. But when you know that if a vote is allowed, you will lose and look foolish, you do what all extremists do: prevent the vote. Even if it is a simple 'recognize and give credit for a job well done' by those put in harm's way for the benefit of us all.

There can be no doubt that our system of government is broken when a very radical tiny minority of far left politicians can control our institutions to the sole benefit of their extreme agenda and the corresponding detriment to American families generally and to our uniformed men and women in particular. Such circumstances are harmful to the nation, counter to the intent of our system of government, wrong on it's face and virtually on the border of anti-American intent.

A non-binding vote is not law and it is not an admission of bad judgment one way or the other. In this case it is simply an opportunity for Congress to give official recognition to the real Americans who put their lives on the line by voluntarily responding to the call of the nation. Pols who cannot do that are so agenda driven as to be intellectually bankrupt, personally bitter and on the wrong side of history. As such they will go down in the historical Hall Of Shame, much to the embarrassment of their families and to the despoilment of their own public records.

These people are reprehensible and their actions despicable. They will be so judged.


No Vote for the Troops

Even Barack Obama, who opposed the Iraq troop surge, has finally acknowledged its success. But some of his fellow Democrats in Congress apparently remain unconvinced. Earlier this week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin teamed up to block a vote on a bipartisan resolution "recognizing the strategic success of the troop surge in Iraq" and thanking our men and women in uniform for their efforts.

By late 2006, Iraq was gripped by sectarian chaos. Insurgents and death squads were killing nearly 3,000 civilians per month, and coalition forces were sustaining more than 1,200 attacks per week. On January 10, 2007, President Bush announced the new counterinsurgency strategy that included deploying five additional Army brigades and two Marine battalions to Iraq.

Under General David Petraeus, who relinquished command of U.S. forces in Iraq on Tuesday, sectarian bloodshed has almost entirely abated, daily attacks have fallen to 25 from a high of 180 in June 2007, and overall violence has declined by more than 70%. In July, U.S. combat deaths were lower than in any month since the beginning of the war. All of the troops sent to Iraq as part of the surge have now returned home and are not being replaced.

Citing General Petraeus by name, the resolution, which is sponsored by Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman and Republican Lindsey Graham, "commends and expresses the gratitude to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces for the service, sacrifices, and heroism that made the success of the troop surge in Iraq possible."

The Senators -- allies of John McCain -- had hoped to attach the resolution to a defense bill under consideration this week. But Mr. Reid wouldn't allow it. Democrats have often claimed that while they may oppose the war in Iraq, they wholeheartedly support the troops. That's a defensible position, and this resolution honoring our soldiers and Marines for a job well done gave them a chance to back up their rhetoric. Yet they still balked.

The reality is that success in Iraq has confounded the political left, which placed a huge political bet on our defeat. Senator Reid famously declared the war lost in April 2007. Joe Biden introduced a resolution opposing the surge. And Hillary Clinton said the reports of progress in Iraq required "a willing suspension of disbelief." In the Democratic narrative, our troops in Iraq are victims of a lost cause, not heroes. They're allowed to get maimed and killed, but not to succeed.

Thus Democrats are left to argue that success in Iraq is irrelevant because the real fight against al Qaeda is occurring in Afghanistan. Or that the reduced violence in Iraq has resulted not from the troop surge but from the Sunni Awakening and the retreat of the Sadr militias.

Of course, the surge troops weren't the only reason for success, as retired General Jack Keane argues in an interview here. But without the demonstration of that U.S. commitment, neither the Sunnis nor the Sadrists would have stood down. As for the Iraq campaign's supposed diminished importance in the war on terror, earlier this month General Petraeus told the Washington Post that Iraq remains "the central front" for al Qaeda and other extremist groups.

The Lieberman-Graham resolution is a chance for Democrats to show that their support for the troops is more than rhetorical. It changes no policy and in that sense is only symbolic. Yet it is precisely the political symbolism of admitting they were wrong that is stopping the Democratic leadership from letting it come up for a vote before the Senate adjourns. Unfortunately, the last thing that Democrats want to discuss in this election season is success in Iraq.

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

It is important to begin by recognizing a few key points:

1. Sitting Senators are not highly desirable candidates for the Presidency. Two, John Kennedy and Warren G. Harding, have been elected out of the Senate into the Oval office in our entire history. Fairly or unfairly, neither amounted to much as President. Senators are compromisers and deliberaters, not decision makers. Having to choose between two sitting Senators is not the best of choices to begin with in this election, which is further compromised by a third sitting Senator as the Veep candidate on the Democrat ticket. Only the Republican Veep candidate comes out of an actual executive decision making position, that of a Governor (and small town Mayor), meaning three out of the four candidates now sit in the US Senate;

2. There is a time honored saying associated with politics that must be at the forefront of any practical consideration of both tickets. It has often been said of politicians that, "If there lips are moving, they are lying". Although a bit harsh to be sure, there is some accuracy within that message that applies especially to the post-convention time frame that is the run up to the November election. The speeches, the commercials, the proclamations of the surrogate media, the guest appearances by substitute representatives (usually other politicians or celebrities), endorsements and the like is all intended to emotionally manipulate the electorate. Put another way, it is incumbent upon all of us to pay zero attention to what all of these people have to say, either positive or negative, about themselves, their opponents or their chosen favorites. We are now to be the victims of close to two solid months of verbal and emotional abuse by those who want to externally control our behavior and decision making process. Remember: when their lips move, DO NOT LISTEN;

3. How then to make an informed and thoughtful decision? Ignore their words, examine their records. The easiest way to judge future behavior is to study past actions and statements. Take a careful and studied look at what these candidates have done since graduating from college. What have they accomplished? How have they failed? What were their mistakes? When and under what circumstances have they been successful? What is their track record, and if you will, their paper trail? How are they evaluated, to the degree that we can know, by the people they have worked with? Remember, a politician, especially those running for the single most powerful elective office in the world, will say virtually anything to get elected. They will say contradictory things to diametrically opposed audiences in order to get the votes of both. They will take polls to find out what voters want them to say and than they will say it, regardless of what they might have said in the past or what, in their hearts, they believe. Note: ignore the words, examine the records. In the end, it is about their achievements, not their pronouncements;

4. No matter how you cut it, this is an historical election. First of all, active campaigning has been going on for at least two years. That's new. There is no sitting or former President or Vice President on either ticket. That is rare. Because of the initial large field of candidates, the extended campaign time frame and the strong feelings on both sides of the political divide, record levels of cash will be spent on this election, far exceeding anything in our history. The ongoing monthly fund raising totals of the main campaigns have run in the tens of millions of dollars EVERY 30 DAYS! On one side we might elect the very first black (bi-racial) President in history and on the other side we might elect the very first female Vice President in history. The Democrat Veep and the Republican POTUS candidates are both, to use a phrase, potential elder statesman. America has never seen the like of this national election. We in fact do live in amazing times and regardless of how it comes out, this election is clearly historical.

So much for the foreplay. Now let's get down to business. For me, this might very well become an elimination election. To put it the other way around, at this point in time it is easier to identify who I will not vote for as opposed to who will get my vote.

Barak Obama, a good and talented American, will be denied my vote. Keeping in mind that it is not about words but about achievements, what follows are the reasons why:

-ROOKIE: Law school graduate who practiced very little law and was briefly a law professor. Also a community organizer for a couple of years as well as an Illinois State Legislator. US Senator for less than three years. Truth be told: that is a very thin resume to present when applying for the job of President of the United States. Try as you might, you will find no executive or leadership experience in his background.

As a politician he has been a deliberater but not much of a comprimiser. When examined from start to finish, there are no accomplishments or achievements of note in his background. It is a resume devoid of any kind of measurable record. He has never led anything and never been the final decision maker in any organization of substance.

POTUS is not an entry level position. In the world we live in today, on the job training as our President is simply a non-starter. On the key issues of our times, he has no expertise, background, experience or training regarding war, diplomacy or the economy. In the single most important area of qualification, EXPERIENCE, he has virtually none of the kind this position requires. Worst of all, on many occasions during this campaign season Obama has come across as naive relative to the larger world and the challenges we face therein.

-RADICAL: Never in the history of the United States have voters been presented with a major party ticket as far to the left as this one. In the current US Senate, Obama and Biden are ranked to the left of Socialist Bernie Sanders. Obama is the number one ranked liberal among sitting Senators with Biden ranked third. Based upon his voting record in the State Legislature and in Congress, he is so far out to the left as to be almost mistaken for a borderline Marxist.

In fact, he would not be the Democrat party nominee had not the levers of power within the party been co-opted by the far left of the party (by the likes of Dean, Pelosi & Reid). Want to know why Hillary did not get the nomination? Because the radical left does not like the Clintons.

Further, Obama's past political and religious affiliations have been with radicals. He has developed his entire political career through the very left and often corrupt Chicago political machine. When examining his track record in politics it is impossible to escape the fact that Obama represents the most radical candidate to ever have a legitimate shot at capturing the Presidency.

Can anyone reasonably expect that he will abandon his entire political ideology and history to become a centrist? Or is it reasonable to expect that he will be true to his roots and fundamental beliefs, as demonstrated by his actions and deeds, and veer way to the left once elected? The answers to those questions are self-evident.

-POLITICS AS USUAL: In politics, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in American political history, the word CHANGE means the same old politics as usual, just delivered by a different face and wrapped in a different package. By definition, a politician who got his start under the tutelage of the entrenched and powerful Chicago political machine certainly does not represent a fresh new approach.

Being a black politician elected to the State Legislature from a predominantly black voting district is standard political fare, not post-racial politics.

Running for office after finishing law school is the normal developmental profile of a politician, particularly one that has designs on being a career politician. It is not new and different, it is standard and common.

Moving up the political ladder as rapidly as possible so as to have left behind as minimal a paper trail and voting record as possible is not unusual. In fact, it is smart if you seek and aspire to greater personal goals in the political world. The less the opposition can use from your past to throw back at you during a campaign, the less they can damage you with your performance record. By keeping a low profile, an ambitious politician leaves nothing of note in the public record.

At this point, when you speak of change and Obama in the same context, it is simply to point out how much his position on many issues has "evolved" and how "nuanced" his approach to important matters turns out to be over the course of the campaign. That reality alone is a powerful indicator of just how much of a 'politics as usual' candidate he is in this election.

-ONE PARTY GOVERNMENT: Have we not learned our lesson? In modern American political history, almost every time that one party or the other has held the Legislative and the Executive branches of government simultaneously, nothing good has ensued. Obviously the Republicans are the most recent example of that problem but the Democrat party has been there as well and it has been a nightmare repeated too often in the past.

It is simply a very bad idea to put the levers of governmental power into the hands on one and only one political party. It corrupts the entire systemic concept of the balance of power. It eliminates any and virtually all political and policy opposition. It becomes it's own form of a sort of 'tyranny of the majority'. It is simply wrongheaded.

Since our Legislative branch is now controlled by the Democrat party, with virtually no chance that this election will change that fact, electing Democrat Obama to head the Executive branch will give us the inherent and proven weakness of uni-party government. That is a bad practice generally and would be even worse in this cycle.

Why? Because, as noted earlier, the control of the Democrat party is currently held by the far left. They represent a rather small percentage of the total population of this country. Putting the power of the federal government into the hands of those on an extreme and radical edge of political thought would be an out sized risk for a nation of moderates. It would create a circumstance that would put the American people at odds with their government and over time create a political backlash that would most certainly go too far in the other direction.

We are a centrist nation politically with most people being moderately left or moderately right of center. Government by the extremes, either extreme, is unworkable, untenable and wholly undesirable.

-MEDIA DARLING: We have reached the point in this country when every time one sees a 'ONE WAY' sign on a street corner, one can be easily reminded of the performance of our established, long time national electronic and print media. Candidate Obama is their idol, over all other comers. Other Democrat pols do not measure up to him and most certainly Republican pols have no chance to be in the same category. No candidate in this cycle has come any where near having been featured so often on so many magazine covers.

When even former first lady and prior media darling Hillary Clinton is knowingly and purposefully turned upon, there can be no doubt that said media has decided who the next POTUS will be, or by gosh they will die trying to make it so. Interestingly, they are indeed dying. Measured by subscriptions and advertising revenue, that selfsame national media has been headed in the wrong direction for some time now. Not all of it is attributable to their unabashed partisanship but that is a major factor. The latest polling in fact finds that more Americans consider the media to be a bigger problem to the electoral process than corporations and the influence of their money.

A very good rule of thumb for a voter to follow is this: if the media has a clear candidate in the hunt be very, very wary of that candidate. The most recent proof of media interference in the electoral process has been the trashing of Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and of late Sarah Palin.

The media drive to gain favor for their candidate of choice knows no bounds, has no decency and will not rest. The fact that the media turned on their former favorites, the Clintons, is testimony to their viciousness. Nothing stands in their way. Thus for careful and cautious voters, the media darling candidate should be met with deep skepticism if not all out disdain.

-LAWYER: Listen, we all know the old saw than no one likes lawyers until they need one. And of course there is some truth to that. But most lawyers are not bad people and most politicians are lawyers. That last point is an entire topic on it's own.

One thing about being trained and educated to be a lawyer: it is not leadership training. It is not about making important decisions and leading others during a crisis. It is about knowing the law. It is about arguing the case of the client. It is about promoting one's own interests, not the larger interest's. It is about spin and presenting only the facts and arguments that support your side. It is not about promoting the general welfare.

In fact, training in the law is a very poor route to take in order to become a Chief Executive Officer, charged with the responsibility of protecting the national interest of millions of diverse Americans. It is helpful training to be a legislator but it is counter intuitive training to be THE decision maker.

In recent history, the last three Presidents to be formally trained as lawyers were Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon, representing both parties. Each had a rough time in office, for varying reasons. One was impeached, another resigned and the third served less than one full term in office. The generalization here, acknowledging that there have been past exceptions (although not in my lifetime), is that lawyers do not make good leaders. As a law school graduate, former law professor and as a lawyer, Obama has yet to demonstrate that he is an exception to that general rule.

It fascinates me that the Obama campaign has chosen to run against George W. Bush as their major appeal to voters, attempting to play on the fact that Bush is an unpopular President. Although there can be no doubt that Obama would beat Bush hands down in this election, the problem arises that Bush is not on the ballot. Why then is that such an important theme of his campaign?

-Because it solidifies his far left base? Maybe, but I cannot imagine that it is necessary to do that.

-Because his campaign believes that voters cannot distinguish between candidates and simply see party affiliation as the measure of an election? There might be some ground to be gained there, but the price may prove to be too high. Most voters are not that stupid. They tend to be more discerning and discriminating than just straight partly line sheep. In the end, it comes across as somewhat elitist to treat people as if they are just plain dumb. And being prep school and Ivy League elitist is no longer an advantage in national politics.

-Because hatred of Bush is a strong and widely shared emotion and the more you can whip up the emotions of voters, the easier they are to manipulate? Most certainly. But again, are those folks going to vote for anyone else other than Obama anyway?

I don't know the answer but it raises some doubt as to the substantive nature of the entire campaign. Why run against a non-candidate when there is ample opportunity to run on one's record, resume, popularly held positions, media status, party draw and eloquent, scholarly legal training?

Obviously, there are good reasons why.

Let's all acknowledge that, in terms of human nature, often what is one man's truth is another man's propaganda. We all tend to think that those who do not agree with us are simply full of it (the famous it) and the nature of their arguments are simply not true. Given that as an opening premise for what follows, we can begin to distinguish between what is actually going on around us and what is, in fact, propaganda.

The piece below is taken from a Victor Davis Hanson post in Works & Days, his Pajamas Media blog. Professor Hanson is right of center politically and a well established author of history. He is an eloquent and effective promoter of the conservative side of the political spectrum. Most importantly, what he writes is based within the tenants of academic scholarship. It is well researched and thoughtfully written. Thus there is no ranting, false information or faux arguments. If a mistake is ever made, it is acknowledged. What Hanson produces is not propaganda (lies). It is a presentation of his take and perspective on people, society and events.

Unfortunately, much of what is produced by political and media leftists is meant to mislead, misdirect, spin or just plain misinform. While in hot pursuit of their self-serving agenda, manipulating perceptions and people is considered fair game. In other words, the ends definitely justify the means. In their world the common good and the national interest is of no consequence to the degree that it may conflict with their special interest.

Further complicating their reality is how far out of touch the left is with most of everyday America. They have convinced themselves that the rest of the nation is nothing more than backwater hicks who do cling to their religion and their guns. Notably that is most all of the middle of the American continent. New England leftists along with left (west) coast leftists are self-convinced that all of the folks in between are nothing more than uneducated losers who have no idea as to what makes the world go around. Leftists have a massively condescending view of regular Americans and that leads to much of what Hanson highlights in this piece.

The disconnect is stunning and beyond the abilities of those on the far left to see, acknowledge or understand. All of this makes our current presidential election campaign one of the most fascinating in history. In some respects, it is the last gasp attempt by the far left to regain prominence in government and legitimacy in politics. They have seized control of the Democrat party and the two candidates they have put forward are farther left than any other ticket, ever.

How will it go? Who will prevail? It is in our hands.


Two nations….

The Geraldine Ferraro Democratic Vice Presidential nominee appointment was an inspired stroke of genius that advanced the cause of feminism; Palin’s was tawdry tokenism.

Edwards was a social reformer brought down by the tabloids; Palin’s 17-year-old daughter is white trash and fair game.

Insulting “small town mayors” and “good looking” women is funny; suggesting that “community organizing” is often a farce is a felony.

Obama’s violation of drug laws with a “little blow” was youthful exuberance; Palin’s husband’s DUI was more proof of a working-class messy family.

Joe Biden bravely continued as Senator after the tragic death of his wife and daughter left his injured young sons with a single parent; Sarah Palin selfishly shorted her children by running for VP and endangered her infants by flying while pregnant.

Criticizing Clinton’s engaging in sex in the oval office and lying about it to the American people were once “the politics of personal destruction”; lying that Sarah Palin might not have been the mother of her 5th child is the mere overreach of the blogs caused by the improper vetting of the McCain campaign.

This all reminds me of the 2000 campaign when the media beat the dead-horse of Bush (Yale BA, Harvard MBA) as the lousy, lazy C-student, when, in fact, Al Gore’s undergraduate record at Harvard was full of C’s, F’s at Vanderbilt Divinity School (dropped out), and C’s at Vanderbilt Law School (dropped out).

The point is not that quitting professional schools is necessarily a sign of anything, but rather once again that the media is shown to be bending and inventing facts for their higher purposes of liberal utopianism— a continuation of some half a century when we remember the “dumb” Ike floundering before the “brilliant” and “witty” Adlai Stevenson (who flunked out of Harvard Law School, a fact hidden from the public for decades.)

ENTIRE POST HERE