Not until a year after Lexington did the Continental Congress muster the resolve to declare the 13 colonies free and independent states, no longer subject to Parliament or Crown.

Not for five years after July 4, 1776, did George Washington’s army truly attain America’s independence at Yorktown.

Even then, Washington and his aide Alexander Hamilton knew that the 13 states, while politically independent, were dependent upon Europe for the necessities of their national life. Without French ships and guns, French muskets and troops, the Americans could not have forced Gen. Cornwallis’ surrender at Yorktown.

Cornwallis would have sailed away, as Gen. Howe had from Boston.

Indeed, absent the 1778 alliance with France, our Revolution would have been a longer, bloodier affair and might not have succeeded.

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, both Washington and Hamilton were determined to make America’s political independence permanent, and to begin to cut the umbilical cord to Europe.

In the Constitution that came out of that convention, the states were prohibited from imposing any tariffs on the products of other states, thus creating the greatest common market in history, the United States of America. Second, the U.S. government was empowered to raise revenue by imposing tariffs on foreign goods, but explicitly denied the power to impose taxes on the incomes of American citizens.

And as Hamilton set the nation onto a course that would ensure economic independence, Washington took the actions and made the decisions that would assure our political independence.

First, he declared neutrality in the European wars that followed the French Revolution of 1789. Second, he sought to sever the 1778 alliance with France, a feat achieved by his successor, John Adams.

Third, in his Farewell Address, the greatest state paper in U.S. history, Washington admonished his countrymen to steer clear of permanent alliances and to stay out of Europe’s wars. Rarely in the 19th century did the United States divert from the course set by Washington and Hamilton.

In 1812, however, James Madison, goaded by “war hawks” Henry Clay and John Calhoun, and ignoring the counsel of the Farewell Address, declared war on Britain and came near to seeing his nation torn apart.

Had it not been for the Duke of Wellington’s preoccupation with Napoleon and Andy Jackson’s rout of a British invasion army at New Orleans, America might have been split asunder. In 1814, New England was on the verge of seceding, and the British had in mind splitting off the vast Louisiana territory. As it was, Madison had to flee Washington when a British army came up the Bladensburg Road to burn the Capitol and Madison’s White House.

After peace in 1815, however, Madison signed the Tariff Act of 1816 to prevent British merchants from dumping goods into the United States to kill America’s infant industries that had arisen during the war and to prevent British merchants from recapturing the U.S. markets they had lost.

For most of the 19th century, the nation followed the economic policy of Hamilton and the foreign policy of Washington – and was richly rewarded. By the first decade of the 20th century, America was the most independent and self-reliant republic in all of history.

And by staying out of two world wars of the 20th century until many of the bloodiest battles had been fought, America emerged in 1945 economically and politically independent of all other nations.

During the Cold War, however, Americans came to believe that a temporary alliance, NATO, was necessary to prevent Joseph Stalin’s empire from overrunning Europe and turning the balance of power against us. To help our wartime allies and former enemies Japan, Germany and Italy to their feet, we set aside Hamilton’s policy and threw open the American market to the goods of Free Europe and Free Asia.

These should have been temporary alliances and temporary measures. Instead, they were made permanent.

No longer free of foreign entanglements, as Thomas Jefferson urged, we now have commitments to defend 50 countries. The old Hamiltonian policy of “Prosper America First” has given way to worship of a Global Economy, at whose altars we sacrifice daily the vital interests of our own manufacturers and workers.

“Interdependence” is now the desired end of the new elite.

And so we have become again a dependent nation. We borrow from Europe and Japan to defend the oil of Europe and Japan in the Persian Gulf. We borrow from China to buy the goods of China. We are as dependent on foreign borrowing as we are on foreign oil.

And the questions arise: If the men of ‘76, who led those small and vulnerable states, were wiling to sacrifice their lives, fortunes and sacred honor for America’s independence, what is the matter with us?

Do we not value independence as they did? Or is it that we are simply not the men our fathers were?

Happy Independence Day.

Stiff Right Jab contributor, Pat Buchanan, is America’s leading populist conservative, was a senior advisor to three American Presidents, ran twice for the Republican nomination in 1992 and 1996, and was the Reform Party’s Presidential candidate in 2000. The author of eight books, including the mega-bestsellers, The Death of the West and Where the Right Went Wrong, as well as other bestsellers. Mr. Buchanan is a syndicated columnist, a political analyst for MSNBC, and a founding member of three of America’s foremost public affairs shows. He is also Editor Emeritus of The American Conservative..

Stiff Right Jab invites you to visit Buchanan.org to get your copy of Pat’s great new book, Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War.

"In the South, while the question of slavery no longer had a place in the front-page news, it had hardly died away. Southerners needed only to look to the Northwest and Indian Territories, where most of the immigrants were settling, see the sort of states that would be formed from them -- most of them admitted with constitutions banning slavery. How long would it be before they were overwhelmed, in Senate and House? Right now, one of their own, indeed their champion, was imposing his will on the North -- how long before the shoe was on the other foot? Jefferson's embargo was hurting them, too; countless bales of cotton remained piled on the docks and levees, with no place to send them. Something had to be done...'

'By the grace of God, literally, the republic stayed together. The nation stumbled on, with Jefferson's protege, James Madison, now at the helm. But the situation was not improving. On the Continent, Napoleon appeared to be invincible. The Austrians fell to him, and the Spaniards, and the Italians, and now he was turning towards Russia; it appeared he was about to add the Bear to his list of conquests. The greater his success, the greater the threat he posed to the island race to his west. And the greater measures Britain took to protect herself. Now any American ship found on the high seas was likely to be taken and her crew impressed. As A. L. Burt put it:"

"The independence of the United States was being frittered away. The country was losing its self-respect, the most precious possession a nation can have, as it failed to command the respect of the belligerents. More and more the feebleness of the American government's policy had been teaching these embattled giants of the Old World that they could trample with impugnity upon American rights, American interests, and American feelings."

Marshall and Manuel take up the narrative again, "Finally, by the Summer of 1812, there had been too many ignominies, too many outrages; it was reported that more than 6,000 American citizens had been kidnapped and forced to serve in the Royal Navy, which had to replace some 2,500 deserters a year and simply refused to curtail impressment. If America was to retain any semblance of honor, she had no further alternative but to fight. Crying 'Free Trade and Sailor's Rights', the War Hawks in Congress won the vote for war seventy-nine to forty-nine, and on June 18, President Madison proclaimed that a state of war existed between Great Britain and the United States. The American cause was summed up by the commander of Western Tennessee Militia:"

"We are going to fight for the re-establishment of our national character, misunderstood and villified at home and abroad; for the protection of our maritime citizens, impressed on board British ships of war and compelled to fight the battles of our enemies against ourselves; to vindicate our right to a free trade, and open the market for the production of our soil, now perishing on our hands because the 'mistress of the ocean' forbids us to carry them to any foreign nation. ANDREW JACKSON"

There are times we must fight. One of them is when we have been attacked. Definitely we have been attacked again. From the book FROM SEA TO SHINING SEA pp. 131 & 132 paperback

And the hype will ensue leading to the general election on November 4th, with the eye on the 1st Black President possibility. But, lets put Barack Obama into his own perspective AS WELL AS a historical perspective.

First, as for Obama himself. Barack Obama Jr. is not black. He is multi-racial. In an earlier time, he would be a mullato, and would have been discriminated against by the black race as much if not more than the Caucasians. Realistically, Obama is more white than black, if one wants to be specific. Though his "alleged" birth certificate lists his father as "African", Barack Obama Sr.'s birth record actually lists him as Arab. So we can just as easily say Obama would be our first Arab-American President, if elected.

From a historical perspective, there is a vast amount of information regarding the black lineage of several of our forefathers. In the book "Black People and Their Place In World History", Dr. Leroy Vaughn has a chapter entitled "Five Black Presidents."

The following is the excerpt of the chapter:

 Joel A. Rogers and Dr. Auset Bakhufu have both written books documenting that at least five former presidents of the United States had Black people among their ancestors. If one considers the fact that European men far outnumbered European women during the founding of this country, and that the rape and impregnation of an African female slave was not considered a crime, it is even more surprising that these two authors could not document Black ancestors among an ever larger number of former presidents. The president’s names include Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren Harding, and Calvin Coolidge.

The best case for Black ancestry is against Warren G. Harding, our 29th president from 1921 until 1923. Harding himself never denied his ancestry. When Republican leaders called on Harding to deny the "Negro" history, he said, "How should I know whether or not one of my ancestors might have jumped the fence." William Chancellor, a White professor of economics and politics at Wooster College in Ohio, wrote a book on the Harding family genealogy and identified Black ancestors among both parents of President Harding. Justice Department agents allegedly bought and destroyed all copies of this book. Chancellor also said that Harding's only academic credentials included education at Iberia College, which was founded in order to educate fugitive slaves.

Andrew Jackson was our 7th president from 1829 to 1837. The Virginia Magazine of History Volume 29 says that Jackson was the son of a White woman from Ireland who had intermarried with a Negro. The magazine also said that his eldest brother had been sold as a slave in Carolina. Joel Rogers says that Andrew Jackson Sr. died long before President Andrew Jackson Jr. was born. He says the president's mother then went to live on the Crawford farm where there were Negro slaves and that one of these men was Andrew Jr's father. Another account of the "brother sold into slavery” story can be found in David Coyle's book entitled "Ordeal of the Presidency" (1960).

Thomas Jefferson was our 3rd president from 1801 to 1809. The chief attack on Jefferson was in a book written by Thomas Hazard in 1867 called "The Johnny Cake Papers." Hazard interviewed Paris Gardiner, who said he was present during the 1796 presidential campaign, when one speaker states that Thomas Jefferson was “a mean-spirited son of a half-breed Indian squaw and a Virginia mulatto father.” In his book entitled "The Slave Children of Thomas Jefferson," Samuel Sloan wrote that Jefferson destroyed all of the papers, portraits, and personal effects of his mother, Jane Randolph Jefferson, when she died on March 31, 1776. He even wrote letters to every person who had ever received a letter from his mother, asking them to return that letter. Sloan says, "There is something strange and even psychopathic about the lengths to which Thomas Jefferson went to destroy all remembrances of his mother, while saving over 18,000 copies of his own letters and other documents for posterity." One must ask, "What is it he was trying to hide?"

Abraham Lincoln was our 16th president from 1861 to 1865. J. A. Rogers quotes Lincoln's mother, Nancy Hanks, as saying that Abraham Lincoln was the illegitimate son of an African man. William Herndon, Lincoln's law partner, said that Lincoln had very dark skin and coarse hair and that his mother was from an Ethiopian tribe. In Herndon's book entitled "The Hidden Lincoln" he says that Thomas Lincoln could not have been Abraham Lincoln's father because he was sterile from childhood mumps and was later castrated. Lincoln's presidential opponents made cartoon drawings depicting him as a Negro and nicknamed him “Abraham Africanus the First."

Calvin Coolidge was our 30th president, and he succeeded Warren Harding. He proudly admitted that his mother was dark because of mixed Indian ancestry. However, Dr. Bakhufu says that by 1800 the New England Indian was hardly any longer pure Indian, because they had mixed so often with Blacks. Calvin Coolidge's mother's maiden name was "Moor." In Europe the name "Moor" was given to all Black people just as the name Negro was used in America.

All of the presidents mentioned were able to pass for White and never acknowledged their Black ancestry. Millions of other children who were descendants of former slaves have also been able to pass for White. American society has had so much interracial mixing that books such as “The Bell Curve”, discussing IQ evaluations based solely on race, are totally unrealistic.

Thus, if Obama is campaigning as the "Candidate of Change", let's make sure he changes the commentary, and takes "Race" out of the Presidential race. Remember, despite the claims that Bill Clinton threw down the race card in South Carolina (another mutated news blurb), it is Barack Obama who has consistently played the race card.... "and did I tell you I was black!" (Fl. speech 6/20/08)

.

To kick off the reopening of Fort Pike Confederate reinactors set up camp and performed weapons demonstrations along with classes on camp life and cooking. The living history exhibits were graciously provided by the Slidell Battery and Washington Artillery of New Orleans.

Fort Pike is smaller than most forts along the Gulf Coast and it doesn't feature a museum, but it does offer a great insight into an interesting chapter of New Orleans history. The restoration and promotion of this historic site is important for the state of Louisiana and the entire Gulf Coast. Let's hope Fort Macomb is next on the list.

Perhaps the most well known historic site in the New Orleans area is the Chalmette Battlefield located in St. Bernard Parish. The battle took place on January 8, 1815, with over 2,000 British losses while the Americans only lost about 100 troops. At the time New Orleans was the third largest port in the US so a British victory would had been a major victory. An interesting footnote to the battle was that a peace treaty (Treaty of Ghent) had already been signed signifying the end of the war, but the news had not made it South yet. In fact the Gulf Coast British invasion continued even after New Orleans with the Battle of Fort Bowyer at the mouth of Mobile Bay.

Due to flooding in 2005 the museum has been reduced to a video and a few posters in a trailer. According to the National Park Ranger, the battlefield and cemetery held over 7 feet of water for at least three days following Hurricane Katrina. The Malus-Beauregard house (pictured below) is still damaged and not open to the public.

The cemetery is fantastic with giant oak trees, a cistern, and various markers and monuments for over 15,000 troops ranging from the War of 1812 to the Vietnam War.

On my Facebook account a few days ago I got an invitation to be a friend from Kevin Murphy.

I don't know any Kevin Murphy.

I investigated the matter. I established that Mr. Murphy is running as a Democrat for the Texas State House of Representatives from the Pearland area. This is House District 29.

Good enough--- While I have no idea who he is running against, Mr. Murphy has my strong support.

For one thing, I'll endorse and support any Democrat running for office who makes me a friend on Facebook.

For another thing, I'm a strong believer in partisanship. I don't need to know what Republican is running against Mr. Murphy.

I've read about the founding of our party system in Richard Hofstadter's The Idea of a Party System---The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780-1840.  

I agree with what Martin Van Buren says as quoted in Hofstadter's book---

"...political parties are inseparable from free governments...the disposition to abuse power, so deeply ingrained in the human heart, can be by no other means be more effectually checked."

(Please click here for an essay on Mr. Van Buren's role as a party builder in American history. There is also much more infromation on Mr. Van Buren to be found at that link.  The above cartoon suggest that Mr. Van Buren could not get anywhere without the help of Andrew Jackson. Such a charge is simply not the case. President Jackson had the good sense to often listen to Mr. Van Buren for advice and Mr. Van Buren was as skilled a politician as they come. )

Not only do parties help check the tendency towards an accumulation of power based on personality, they also provide a shorthand for voters to detrmine where candidates stand on the overwhelming number of issues we face in the modern day.  

In the Texas House of Representatives, the absence of a party line vote for House Speaker makes that office a focus of backroom intrigue and sneaky double dealing. Democracy calls for the Speaker's office to be awarded based only on what party wins control of the chamber on Election Day. 

There are, of course, limits to partisanship at the ballot box. A party that is certain it has your vote may be motivated to serve interests other than those of voters.

Voters have the option to not vote at all for a specific position on the ballot if they find the Democrat intolerable. Or they can vote for a Green or other minor party candidate. I personally never vote for any Republican because I feel to elect one Republican assists all Republicans. 

Also, voters should recall that with time the parties can switch ideological places. It's possible that today's Democrat would have voted for the more progressive Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, over the more conservative Democrat Alton Parker in 1904. In the end it is ideas that motivate the partisan.

This is especially so now that we don't have party machines handing our free turkeys at Thanksgiving or able to give your brother-in-law a job with the sanitation department.

The bottom line?

Vote for Murphy!

Who has had the best vote totals in the history of Presidential elections?

There have been 46 Presidential elections where the popular vote was tabulated and used to allocate electoral votes. 

( Lyndon Johnson won many votes in his 1964 election.)

The first popular vote for President was held in 1824. Andrew Jackson won the popular count but lost the election in the House of Representatives to John Quincy Adams. This was the election of the so-called Corrupt Bargain.

Here are ten highest percentages won by a candidate for President since 1824 along with the number of votes tabulated for all candidates.---( The links to the University of Virginia's Miller Center for Public Affairs are very good.)

1. 61.1%---Lyndon Johnson, 1964, 70.6 million votes.

Four years ahead of the rise of the right.

2. 60.8%---Franklin Roosevelt, 1936, 45.7 million votes

A New Deal for Democrats after years of Republican domination.

3. 60.7%---Richard Nixon, 1972,  77.7 million votes.

"Nixon's The One" until his resignation less than two years later.

( Warren Harding)

4. 60.3%---Warren Harding, 1920, 27.8 million votes

In the first year women could vote, a return to "normalcy."     

5. 58.5%---Ronald Reagan, 1984, 92.6 million votes

Mourning in America---for 41.5% of voters at least. 

6. 58.2%---Herbert Hoover, 1928, 36.8 million votes

Republican fortunes would soon crash.  

7. 57.4%---Franklin Roosevelt, 1932, 39.7 million votes

Any port in a storm.

8. 57.4%---Dwight Eisenhower, 1956, 62.0 million votes 

His Vice President would do even better 16 years later.

9. 56.4%---Theodore Roosevelt, 1904, 13.5 million votes

Bully for the bully.

10. 56.0%---Andrew Jackson, 1828, 1.1 million votes

No corrupt bargain this time around. No candidate would win a higher percentage for 76 years.  

( Andrew Jackson as a child refused the clean the boots of a British solider during the Revolution) 

Andrew Jackson
New Orleans battle
After Ghent Treaty was signed
No CNN then

posted by Rena Silverman

“There is no passion more deeply rooted in my bosom than the longing for posterity to support my father’s name.”

- John Quincy Adams

There is curious anecdotal evidence that some of history’s most powerful leaders came from homes with absent fathers.  And we are seeing this scenario acted out again in the lives of our two presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain. 

Senator Barack Obama, whose father left home in 1963, was only two years old.  They were separated by continents. Obama was twenty-one years old when he was told in a telephone call that the father he never knew was killed in an automobile accident.

John McCain, son and grandson of navy officers, had a father who was a four star admiral.  He was very loving but very busy and usually faraway.

Many fathers of the American presidents die young.  And even the ones who live usually fall into the Obama-McCain category.  “I was never there,” says George Herbert Walker Bush, “Barbara raised him.”

Three fathers of presidents died before their sons were even born.

            Andrew Jackson

            Rutherford B. Hayes

            Bill Clinton

And many others died at an early age.  James Garfield was one year old when his father died.  Andrew Johnson was three, Herbert Hoover six, George Washington eleven, and Thomas Jefferson fourteen.  Fully nineteen presidents lost their fathers before they reached age thirty.  And only two fathers actually attended their sons’ inaugurations.

There is a very predictable family formula for strong leaders, good and bad.  They have an attachment to the mother and an absent father.  Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedung all fit the pattern as neatly as Washington and Jefferson.

This is why presidential historians always wax eloquent on Mother’s Day.  Curiously, most presidents, including the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, are openly “mama’s boys.”  It must make Sigmund Freud smile for one of his most enduring discoveries was how the perceived favorite child of a mother is empowered for life.  But what is the father’s role in our presidents’ lives?  There is a surprising, positive, answer to that question and it reveals much about the development of great leaders.

But first, consider the overwhelming evidence that mothers play a key role.  Many recent presidents were literally named after their mothers but none of their many siblings.

            Ronald Wilson Reagan named after his mother Nelle Wilson.

            Richard Milhous Nixon named after his mother Hannah Nixon.

            Lyndon Baines Johnson named after his mother Rebecca Baines.

            John Fitzgerald Kennedy named after his mother Rose Fitzgerald.

            Franklin Delano Roosevelt named after his mother Sarah Delano.

            Woodrow Wilson named after his mother Janet Woodrow.

And on and on it goes back into history. Rutherford Birchard Hayes named after his mother Sophia Birchard.  Of course it is not a perfect formula or Marvin Pierce Bush would be the president, not his older brother, George W. Bush, but it is common enough to defy any odds.   “You are a Delano,” FDR’s mother, Sarah Delano used to tell him, “not a Roosevelt.”

“God bless my mother,” Abraham Lincoln supposedly said to his law partner William Herndon,” all I am or ever hope to be I owe to her.”

 “I was a mama’s boy,” said Woodrow Wilson, “no question about it, but the best

of womanhood came to me through those apron strings.”

So what is going on here and what does it mean for Father’s Day?  Not only are most presidents unabashed devotees to their mothers but, to add insult to injury, in most cases, the fathers were not even there.

For many years this dynamic nagged on me.  Not only is it the template for leadership but it seemed to be the template for aggressive and criminal behavior.  America’s prisons, for example, are full of young men who are also attached to their mothers and have an absent father.  For many years I agreed with psychologists who theorized that both presidents and criminals drink from the same poison cup with vastly differing results.  It was a strange tonic for good to the achieving presidents and a formula for terrible emotional damage to the criminal.

And then the puzzle was solved.  The source of the solution, as in the case of many of the world’s great solutions, came from a Pakistani taxi cab driver, on my way to a television studio interview.  “Have you checked out the fathers in question?” he asked.  “Yes, they are absent from their families but what do the fathers of presidents and the fathers of criminals do differently with their lives?”

Bingo.

A quick study showed that the fathers of criminals are just absent.  The fathers of presidents are absent but high achievers or sometimes heroes who expressed their interest or love to their sons.  Even the poorest presidential father, Jacob Johnson, father to our seventeenth president, was a veritable legend in his home town.

According to Barack Obama, his father was the first African admitted to the University of Hawaii and he surprised the school by graduating first in his class. “He won another scholarship to pursue his PhD at Harvard, but not the money to take his new family with him - or so I was told. A separation occurred, and he returned to Africa to fulfill his promise to the continent.”

John McCain’s father and grandfather were both four star admirals.  It was a first in American military history.  And both were legendary, even heroic.  But often gone.

The fathers of presidents were governors, senators, multi millionaires, generals, ambassadors, preachers and in two cases presidents themselves.  Franklin Roosevelt’s father was seeking to build the first canal to link the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

There is a compelling moral to the story.

If a father only spends his life serving his sons, reducing himself to the role of a taxi driver, running them to little league and soccer practice and math camp, all to show that they are a loving father willing to sacrifice their own advancement to give their sons an opportunity they never had, don’t expect the sons to grow up to be major league ball players or brilliant engineers.  They will likely grow up to be taxi drivers just like their fathers, driving their sons all over suburbia as well.

On the other hand, if a father does something great with his life, achieves something significant or heroic, then, even if he is absent, his son will likely follow and may even do better, just to rub it in.

There is now much evidence that the role of the father, even his absence, is just as important in shaping leaders and presidents as is the role of the mother.  Affirmed and empowered by their mother’s love but also hurt and frustrated by their father’s absence, a leader, including most American presidents, will strive to prove their value and worth with their great achievements.

(Selected quotes taken from The Raising of President and All the Presidents’ Children by Doug Wead, Atria Books.)

 See Doug Wead quoted in this recent New York Post article on the fathers of our presidents.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/hale_to_the_chief_115598.htm

The idea came from Beardsley Ruml, treasurer of Macy's and chairman of New York's Federal Reserve Bank.

Called the "pay-as-you-go" tax, so much money came in with so few complaints that it continued after the war.

John F. Kennedy told Congress, April 20, 1961:

"Introduced during the war when the income tax was extended to millions of new taxpayers, the wage-withholding system has been one of the most important and successful advances in our tax system in recent times.

Initial difficulties were quickly overcome, and the new system helped the taxpayer no less than the tax collector."

But Americans weren't always so taxed.

In his 2nd Annual Message, 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"To proceed as we have begun in substituting economy for taxation."

In his Message to Congress, May 27, 1830, Andrew Jackson said:

"Through the favor of an overruling and indulgent Providence our country is blessed with general prosperity and our citizens exempted from the pressure of taxation, which other less favored portions of the human family are obliged to bear."

Stiff Right Jab, contributing editor, William J. Federer, is the bestselling author of “Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion,” and numerous other books. A frequent radio and television guest, his daily American Minute is broadcast nationally via radio, television, and Internet. Check out all of Bill's books here.

He was governor of the Florida Territory, and is credited with proposing the name "Tennessee" at that State's first convention.

His name was Andrew Jackson.

His wife Rachel dying just three months before he took office as the 7th U.S. President, Andrew Jackson stated in his 2nd Inaugural:

"It is my fervent prayer to that Almighty Being before whom I now stand, and who has kept us in His hands from the infancy of our Republic to the present day...that He will...inspire the hearts of my fellow-citizens that we may be preserved from danger."

On December 30, 1836, Andrew Jackson wrote to A.J. Donelson, upon the death of his wife, Emily:

"We cannot recall her, we are commanded by our dear Saviour, not to mourn for the dead, but for the living...

She has changed a world of woe for a world of eternal happiness, and we ought to prepare as we too must follow...

'The Lord's will be done on earth as it is in heaven.'"

Of the Bible, Andrew Jackson stated:

"That book, Sir, is the Rock upon which our republic rests."

Stiff Right Jab, contributing editor, William J. Federer, is the bestselling author of “Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance no Longer Tolerates Religion,” and numerous other books. A frequent radio and television guest, his daily American Minute is broadcast nationally via radio, television, and Internet. Check out all of Bill's books here.

So tough to know where to begin the analysis...

Is the big story the news? Obama wins nomination; Hillary makes "no decision" about future regarding official concession; Jimmy Carter officially endorses Obama; McCain (introduced by Bobby Jindal) speaks in New Orleans.

Is the big story the future? Obama v. McCain; Phase 2: VP selection; Did you notice the extraordinary contrast in the McCain speech and the Obama speech?; When will Hillary officially concede? Will the elitist label cause problems for Obama in the fall?

Is the big story the completion of the changing of the guard in the Democratic Party? Howard Dean as Chairman of the Party; Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House; and now Barack Obama as Democratic Nominee. Clinton crowd out.

Is the big story the recent past? How did this little-known insurgent, this "skinny kid with the funny name" go from a nice speech at the '04 Convention to the nominee the very next cycle? How did the former first lady with everything going for her lose? Why didn't she have a plan post-Super Tuesday? Has Mark Penn left the country yet?

Is the big story the conclusion of Primary season? The YouTube and blogger cycle; the Superdelegate race; all 54 contests mattered; end of the first real primaries for both Parties since, what, 1952? ; three straight special election wins for Democrats.

Is the big story the history? First African-American nominee of a major party for President in the entire Western World. The "New Generation" stuff - first candidate born in the '60s. Projecting to the future - will the Democratic Party, now considered the Party of Jefferson or Jackson, Roosevelt or Kennedy one day include the name Obama as one of those Party-defining benchmarkers?

Quite a few big stories, and too soon to figure out which is the most important angle (though the media has jumped on the "history" bandwagon, which is both expected and justifiable).

Here's the deal on the weather. There will probably be an outbreak of severe weather well to our northwest as an upper low pressure passes to our northwest and north. It will be weakening as well and any energy tailing down from the main center of vorticity would be coming around here late Friday night or early Saturday morning. Strong storms would not be initiated in our area but would have to hold together if we were to get anything. While conditions are somewhat better for such activity holding together than a couple of days ago, it is still not a given that any severe storms would have the ability to hold together when they move through. When the front slips through on Saturday afternoon, there are also limiting factors that would tend to downplay the risk. Nevertheless, the SPC has us in the slight risk area as of early Friday morning. The above map reflects that and I suspect their reasoning is more precautionary than ominous. I'll update this later on Friday.  Bottom line is that Friday will be hot and humid with highs near 90 and if anything of consequence were to move in here, it would be late Friday night.  Here is the link to the SPC report.

Storm Prediction Center Report

>

On This Date In History: Our future president killed a man in a duel and he did so right here in Kentucky.  Now, Abraham Lincoln was known to be quite abrasive as a young man. His wit was used as a rapier and often really hacked his prey. On at least two occasions, he was challenged to a duel.  That is not the image that we have of Father Abraham.  Well, this isn't about President Lincoln.  No, this is about "Old Hickory" whose reputation better suits the story. 

Andrew Jackson had developed a rough and tough reputation when he ran for President in 1824.  He handily won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote to John Quincy Adams.  The pair battled for the Presidency again in 1828 and Jackson won in spite of charges from the Adams camp that Jackson was an adulterer.  His wife, Rachel, had been married to some guy named Robards.  In 1790, the Kentucky legislature declared that Robards could sue for divorce.  Now, Jackson had been a practicing lawyer since 1787 but I think he could have used the help of a Heavy Hitter.  Jackson assumed that the legislature's declaration was one of divorce. So, he married Rachel in 1791.  Robards finally got around to suing for divorce in 1793, citing Rachel's adultery with Jackson.  The pair got remarried in 1794 but the damage had been done. 

In spite of the fact that the charge of adultery was technically correct, Old Hickory often too hum-bridge to anyone who questioned his wife's honor.  It is said that the future President was involved in 103 duels with his actual participation in 14.  Of the 14, only one resulted with the death of one of Jackson's opponents.  And he did it in Kentucky!!  On this date in 1806 near Harrison's Mills, Kentucky in Logan county near the Red River, Andrew Jackson shot and killed Charles Dickinson.  The standoff came about because...you guessed it...Dickinson questioned Jackson's wife's honor.  You'd think that by that time people would have figured out that, when it came to Rachel, truth was not a defense and Andy was gonna get even. 

Dickinson was younger and a much better shot than Jackson.  He was called a snap shooter for his speed and accuracy.  Jackson knew this and had a risky strategy.  He would allow Dickinson to fire first!  When the pair stood apart at the traditional 24 feet, Dickinson wore a form fitting waist coat and trousers while Jackson had a loose fitting frock coat.  Dickinson fired and Jackson didn't flinch.  Dickinson couldn't believe that he missed.  Jackson took careful aim and his pistol got stuck in half cock. So, he tried again and this time he struck a fatal blow to his victim. 

Here's the interesting part...Dickinson was not wrong.  He didn't miss Andy.  The loose frock coat made the marksman unclear of his target but it was more luck or Divine intervention.  While Dickinson lay dying, Jackson's second noticed blood on Old Hickory's foot and asked if he had been hit.  Jackson replied, "Oh, I believe he has pinked me a little."  Truth is, the bullet had broken some of Jackson's ribs before it lodged so close to his heart that it was left there for the rest of his life.    But, Jackson was not about to let his victim know that he had hit his mark. Instead, he went to a nearby tavern and had a bottle of wine sent to his dying antagonist.    And it didn't change the fact that for two years, Rachel Donelson had indeed been married to two men at the same time.  Imagine what would have happened had someone actually lied about Jackson's wife!! 

• Colorado 9 votes
• Florida 27
• Indiana 11
• Iowa 7
• Louisianna 9
• Michigan 17
• Missouri 11
• Nevada 5
• New Mexico 5
• Ohio 20
• Pennsylvania 21
• Virginia 13

Some of these are probably not truly in play; I doubt the Dems can actually take Indiana and Louisianna, for example. That said, the GOP is going to have to work extra hard to keep these normally reliable states in their column and that will be a challenge in and of itself (in an interesting role reversal, it's the GOP that's short cash this cycle). Others, though, like Virgina and Nevada, are truly contestable.

In truth, though, the election will probably come down to a couple of big states - Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio - as it did in 2000 and 2004. The winner will probably need to take 2 out of those 3 to get to the 270 electoral votes needed to win. The latest polling I've seen on head-to-head matchups in those states between Senators Obama and McCain has McCain slightly up in Ohio and Florida and Obama up in Pennsylvania. All, however, are within the margin of error and there remains a sizeable number of undecideds, others, etc.

I'm a nerd and old so I spent hours creating my own map which is too big to be easily viewed here. Nonetheless, since I managed to color so neatly in the lines, I'm posting it here. If you click on it, it should take you to a larger version where you can actually read it. In battleground states where I was able to find recent (i.e. from May) head-to-head McCain-Obama numbers, they're displayed in a McCain/Obama/Other format.

Those of you who want to play "what if" using your own assumptions can do so much more easily by using the interactive electoral map at a web site called 270 to Win. The interface is very slick and there's lots of historical data on the site in case you want to review - say - the electoral results for 1828 when Andrew Jackson kicked ass in the popular vote (and brought home the most electoral votes) but because no candidate won a majority of electors, the House of Representatives picked John Quincy Adams.

1828 makes 2000 look legitimate by comparison and the 2008 debate about the role of superdelegates seems like a tempest in a teapot.

- Austin

PS - For some reason, I can no longer see the map I pasted into this post (I see a little empty box instead). Since I can't figure out how to fix this, here's a link to the map.

Just three days after the '08 Topps Allen & Ginter Abraham Lincoln DNA card surfaced on the Internet, rival Upper Deck comes back with perhaps the most impressive set of dead guys' DNA/Autographs ever released. Good luck trying to top this set of cards.

Well, you have a chance to own one of these cards. Before you sell your car or take out a third mortgage on your home you should probably know that these cards are all 1 of 1. There is a total of 10 of them and they will be inserted into 2008 Legendary Cuts and 2008 PIece of History Baseball.

Start revving your credit cards! For more info click HERE.

First up, H.W. Brands, author of Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times. Brands' first egregious comment came in the analysis of the Indian Removal and the Cherokee Trail of Tears. Here's what Brands had to say about it:

"Jackson's policy was at peace with the policies of adminstrations before and after his. It's easy to pin the label [of genocidal monster] on Jackson because he took a more visible position. But Jackson probably would have said, this was not merely my policy but the policy of the United States government, for better or worse."

Hm. The show had earlier claimed that Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and J. Q. Adams had all wanted Native Americans removed from their lands. This, apparently, clears Jackson of the shame of actually doing it. It's the "he's just doing what everyone else was thinking" argument.

But there's a reason why none of those presidents actually did it: it was so inhuman they could not see how to do it and retain any integrity at all.

Let's examine Brands' "it's not Jackson's policy, it's the policy of the U.S. government" line. First of all, the U.S. government had multiple treaties with the southeastern Native Americans saying they could stay on their land. Second, the U.S. Supreme Court had just struck down a move to void those treaties and remove the rightful inhabitants of the southeast. Jackson famously ignored the Supreme Court ruling, thus in two ways trampling rather than helplessly going along with the "policy of the U.S. government."

Brands is joined in his benediction of the Indian Removal Act by Andrew Burstein, author of The Passions of Andrew Jackson:

"It's easy for us to attack Jackson for his lack of humanity... he should have known better. But it's too easy for us to do that because we didn't live in their world. And their world, Jackson's world, was a very brutal world."

I remember a friend of mine once reacting to this kind of reasoning; someone had said people in the antebellum period just didn't understand that slavery was wrong, they couldn't have known that because slavery had always existed. And my friend said, Really? Do you think in 200 years people will say about us, 'Oh, people in 1995 didn't understand that racism was wrong because it had always existed. They just weren't able to see a different reality"?

I didn't live in the Nazis' world, so am I unable to say that killing Jewish people is wrong? Of course not. I know it's wrong, and so did those Nazis during their own time. Americans in the 1830s knew lying to people and putting them on a deadly forced march was wrong.

If Jackson's "world" was a "very brutal world," maybe it was because men like Jackson did terrible, brutal things in the name of money, power, and land, and not because people back then were just different than we are and didn't understand that people could live in peace. We "don't live in Jackson's world" because we have made strenuous efforts to outlaw the kind of brutality that people have always known is wrong. We've tried to rid the world of it, and especially to rid America of it because America is supposed to be better than that, and not because something changed in the genetic makeup of humanity between 1830 and 2008.

Finally, it's back to Brands, who says this about Jacksonian democracy: "Jacksonion democracy sums up the idea that power belongs in the hands of the people, that ordinary people should run this [America's] government."

I think Jacksonian democracy shows us that power belongs in the hands of those who uphold the founding principles of representative democracy and natural rights that this nation was founded on, and if someone like Jackson, who tramples those principles, takes power, terrible things happen. If "ordinary people" uphold our founding principles, then by all means give them power. If "unordinary people" (whom I take to mean the rich, the educated, or the thoughtful and cosmopolitan) uphold those principles, then give them power.

Brands' statement is simply another airing of the tired idea that the (ideally western frontier) outsider is The Common Man, decent and straightforward, independent and tough, uneducated and honest. Jackson was straightforward and tough, but that's about it.

This myth that headstrong people who won't listen to anyone else and never admit they're wrong about anything are Real Americans, and the kind of leaders we need to preserve Americanness, is so dangerous. An egomanianc who won't be told when he's going off the rails is not a good leader. From Jackson to Bush, we have seen the terrible results when someone like this holds the presidency.

Now is not the time to idolize Andrew Jackson, but to learn a lesson from his terrible example.

I notice that this phrase is always dragged out to describe/boost someone whose main quality is that he does not ever think he is wrong. Jackson defied the Supreme Court and overreached the powers allocated to the executive in order to mercilessly betray and kill Native Americans, and never once betrayed the slightest regret or doubt about that. So what do you say about him if you admire his in-your-face independence and confidence? He was an American Original.

This seems to mean someone who did bad things but was charismatic. Someone who never once admitted they were wrong. We translate this into confidence, and independence, and being a maverick who doesn't kow-tow to the powers that be. A rebel. These are qualities we like, and so we decide they are only exhibited by Americans.

But there is a difference between rebelling against injustice and rebelling against justice, and anyone who does the latter is not an "American original" but a criminal. Yes, the person may be irritatingly charismatic. But there's no excusing or forgiving the crimes.

So if Jackson's slate can be washed clean by calling him an "American Original", it's time to retire the phrase when used as a compliment.

Thinking you are never wrong is not admirable. It's not a strength. And no American should ever be that way, because never admitting fault is anti-democratic. It's saying one person knows what's right and whatever they do is right and everyone else can just shut up. When the executive won't ever admit fault, it means his entire administration must support his wrongheaded policies because there's no other option. And that's not good for democracy.

Jackson was many things, but in a world filled with criminals and anti-democratic leaders, original is not one of them.

See part 2 for a full analysis of the harmful mythmaking in this program.

The Tennessee GOP has started its Fall campaign on Obama by attacking his wife Michelle for her “proud of America” remarks. They must figure that it’s easier to attack a candidate’s spouse rather than go for the main contender. It’s discourteous and one that is reminiscent of the 1828 attacks against Andy Jackson’s wife Rachel. The Republicans were soundly defeated in that campaign, partly due to Jackson’s immense popularity and the distasteful attacks against his wife.

It remains to be seen if history will repeat itself, but throughout the nomination process, trying to beat Obama with personal attacks instead of policy arguments has all but failed. GOP Tennesseans may feel they were being patriotic in singling out Michelle Obama for their initial attack ads, but this will only increase Obama’s popularity and make Tennessean Republicans look paltry.

If McCain has any spine, he will condemn these spurious attacks and call to make political spousal abuse off limits for both parties. Politics is an ugly business, but drive-by slurs only makes the perpetrators look even uglier in the eyes of voting citizens.

The recent catalogue of natural disasters such as earthquakes and cyclones will not stop European property investors seeking value in Asia’s most promising real estate markets, fund managers said here on Tuesday.

Days after Cyclone Nargis ravaged Myanmar’s Irrawaddy region, a quake measuring 7.9 on the Richter Scale struck China’s Sichuan province, felling buildings and shaking high-rise offices in cities as distant as Thailand’s Bangkok and Vietnam’s Hanoi.

Aid agencies and local governments are still assessing damage inflicted by the events, but neither has tarnished Asia’s appeal to European property investors, who say opportunities to make double and even triple-digit percentage net returns in the region more than offset worries about natural disasters.

‘I can’t imagine the latest events are going to put a major halt on Asian property transaction volumes or the level of cross-border investment into the region,’ said Mark Callender, head of international property research at Schroders, whose US$321 million International Selection Property Securities Fund was around 27 per cent invested in Asian stocks on March 31.

‘Long-term, the opportunities are still there. Markets like Hong Kong and Singapore might look close to their peak, but places like Tokyo and Seoul are only halfway up,’ he said.

Asian commercial property transaction volumes rocketed 27 per cent to US$145 billion in 2007, on the back of an 87 per cent rise in foreign investment to US$73 billion, according to data from property services firm Cushman & Wakefield.

China was one of the world’s top 10 markets for deal volumes last year, leapfrogging more mature markets such as Hong Kong and Singapore for the first time, the data showed.

Cushman & Wakefield said investment volumes were expected to rise again this year, as global funds ramped up allocations to the region.

ING Real Estate, one of the world’s biggest property fund managers, and a leading player in China’s burgeoning residential market, said it did not expect international investment or domestic occupational demand to be severely affected by the quake.

‘We see no reason for a decline in the strong demand for mid-tier residential housing in both Chengdu and Chongqing provinces and in China as a whole,’ said Richard van den Berg, ING’s China country manager.

‘Some slowdown is expected in the immediate aftermath, but we expect that the sales momentum will recover when Sichuan province returns to normality,’ he said.

Standard Life Investments Property Fund manager Andrew Jackson said property team members did weigh up the prevalence of natural disasters when assessing an area, but such studies had limited bearing on investment decisions.

‘We are aware of the risks and there are certain areas we would be cautious about investing in because of vulnerability to cyclones, quakes or flooding,’ Mr Jackson said, while adding that efforts to pin down new opportunities for its global property funds would not be undermined by the catastrophes.

But not even the most conservative fund managers will be tempted to abandon potentially moneyspinning Asian property investment plans in the wake of the disasters, said Trevor Hankin, a fund investment director at PRUPIM, the property unit of insurer Prudential.

‘People are attracted to the huge GDP growth on show throughout Asia, which taken as a whole is probably double that of the USA and Europe,’ said Mr Hankin.

‘No investment is without risk, and clearly geographic phenomena are a risk to investment, but a small one. As investors go, the Pru is about as conservative as it gets, and this has no effect on our appetite for Asian property,’ he said. — Reuters

Source : Business Times - 15 May 2008

Plan B for Mother's Day turned out to be wonderfully fun. Having lived within an hour of President Harding's home for all but about six years of my life, it is ridiculous that I've never toured there. One of Keith's perks to being a part of all these clubs this last year is a family membership to any & all Ohio Historical sites allowing us free admission. So, with the baby coming smack dab in the middle of the summer, we plan to take advantage of our membership & take day trips around to these historical sites we've had on the back burner to visit, the Harding Home being one of them. I had actually planned to go with the kids some Saturday since Keith's been through with his History gang several times already, but it was wonderful going all together. The kids were great and we had our own personal tour guide who really knew her stuff.

Highlights...

- Getting to hear President Harding's voice on his victrola as his campaign record was played for us in his library. He sold these records containing his plan for "return to normalcy" (don't you love his wordage?) after The War on one side, with some tunes of the times on the other. The artists volunteered their songs because all proceeds went to the Red Cross relief effort to help Europe rebuild after WWI. Pretty ingenious!!
- Having Anders ask questions like, "Was he a red coat or a blue coat?" & "Where are their goldfish?", raising his hand ever so sweetly for each one.
- Callie raising her hand & then asking if the tour was over. She was tired.
- Nate noticing the buckeye tree in the front yard.
- The kids listening intently as the guide told about the "haunted clock" in the front room. Nate kept telling the two littles there's no such thing as ghosts & Anders kept insisting he'd seen one before. (See this post for more on Anders & ghosts.)
- Finding a sundial, although it was raining. We'll have to come back & check it out in action. We've been looking for one since Callie had that in a science lesson early in the year.

(Harding on his front porch in a 1920 speech.)

Most of what I'd heard about the Hardings was rather negative through the years. The tour guide gave us the good stuff which was nice to hear. He reduced taxed by 25% in his two & a half years. Pretty impressive! They didn't have an inaugural ball because they strongly felt it was not right to use taxpayer's money on that kind of frivolity. They had no children, so 98% of the Hardings' things are still in the house - the most we have of any president. We had heard a few rumors locally that were cleared up for us today, one being that the real reason he got the women's vote was because he was the only person on the ballot who supported the suffrage movement. The rumors that he won because it was the first time women had the right to vote & he was so handsome had always been suspicious to me. In my book, he's no looker! Anyway, I guess there were seven men on the ballot & he won with 60% of the vote, so he was pretty popular. He was the fourth & last to run a front porch campaign. (I always thought he was the only one.) We finished the tour with a quick romp around the Memorial.

All in all, I'm psyched for the weekend coming up. We are going to tour the Hermitage on Friday morning. That will make the 5th presidential home we will have toured (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Harding & Jackson). That's an interesting mix there on that list, huh? One of these days, we need to stop & see Reagan's childhood home in Illinois. Oh, & one of the other seven Ohio Presidents' homes.

by Beeslo

(Likes old school media, ya know, the type like pictures and stuff)

Hey all! Happy Mother's Day! Did you get your mom a gift or card? If not, you can whip up one quickly and all it will cost you is $1 (well maybe $5, $10 or $20, depending on how much you love her). Nothing says "I Love You," like Andrew Jackson screaming out:

The following is one of 75 bills that this man has "refaced" to most times, hilarious results. Make sure to see the rest of them HERE!

The late film actor/comedian W.C. Fields is quoted as once saying, "Anyone who hates children and dogs can't be all bad." Clearly Fields never dabbled in politics. In politics we love children. Politicians kissing babies can be traced all the way back to the days of United States President Andrew Jackson. And including your children in your campaign commercials is standard fare for most candidates seeking office.

In an effort to push the Rev. Wright pastor disaster controversy out of the current political news cycle and public spotlight, the Obama camp has apparently reimplemented "Operation Obama Offspring." Obama's wife Michelle and daughters Sasha and Malia (ages 6 and 9) were highly visible on the campaign trail in Indiana on Saturday. It was the first time Obama's darling daughters had been with him on the stump since the Iowa caucuses. Apparently the Obama's don't own a dog or goldfish, otherwise we would have been treated to them as well. The soft-sell: Who can dislike a man who has cute kids?

With only 48 hours to go until Indiana voters head to the voting booth--and Obama and Clinton locked into a virtual "dead heat" in the Hoosier state--Obama is clearly manipulating his own children for political gain in his own version of a "kitchen sink" strategy. Depending upon how Tuesday's election goes, we very well might see the Obama camp trot out Obama's granny "Mama Sarah" and her pet chickens in the coming days as the fight grows even more intense. It's either that or Obama is going to need to begin kissing not only babies but kittens in an effort to regain the "love" he had poured upon him by the adoring throngs of largely young white idealists, African-Americans, and the mainstream media only a few short weeks ago.

The problem is, the genie is out of the bottle now. The media as a whole is no longer swooning at the utterance of Obama's every word and Obama isn't exactly a shoe-in choice of working class America. So watch for more warm and fuzzy photo ops and definitely more Bush-bashing and linking of McCain to Bush as Obama attempts to get back on track and rise out of the muck and mire of the current Democrat presidential primary process. For that is what resonates best with Obama supporters.

In fact, the typical Obama supporter expects Obama to not only pull himself out of it but to also do the same for them. It would seem that many of them want Obama to follow Psalm 40:2 if elected president: "He lifted me out of the pit of despair, out of the mud and the mire. He set my feet on solid ground and steadied me as I walked along."

Isn't that what Obama has been promising everyone all along? That under an Obama administration the government will take care of everything?

And a little child shall lead them. Or maybe two of them if you're on the campaign trail in Indiana this weekend.