Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Ronald Reagan - Lifeguard

  Anyone that knows me well knows that Ronald Reagan is one of my hero's and that I long for another leader of the caliber of a Ronald Reagan. There was a time that I did not trust Ronald Reagan. Once he gained my trust I never doubted that America was in good hands because Ronald Reagan was a patriot and I knew that he loved America as much as I did and that he was a visionary. I don't trust most politicians and I don't think that most of them share the love that I have for this country or the love that Ronald Reagan had for this country. His character was developed by a lot of different things but one thing that had a great impact was his job as a life guard. He worked in this job from 1926 until 1932. When his family moved to Dixon Illinois in 1920 he was only nine years old but he had his mind set on one day working as a life guard in Lowell Park. It was a roped off swimming area on the Rock River. A turbulent river with a strong undertow and currents that had taken the lives of many swimmers over the years. When a spot opened in the spring of 1926 he applied as a sophomore in high school for the job but the owner felt that he was too young. He hired him anyway and was never disappointed. 

  Several swimmers had died in the summers just prior to Reagan being hired but he never lost a swimmer the whole seven summers that he was there. He won several swimming competitions in Dixon and still holds the record for swimming the fastest from the park entrance to the rivers farthest bank and back. He was approached to swim in the 1932 Summer Olympics but refused because he didn't want to give up his job. He would watch up to a 1,000 swimmers at one time without assistance. His easiest rescues were toddlers who would wander out. He would always give them a stern warning about going out too far. His most difficult rescues were the strong Illinois farm boys who were as big and strong as he was but a little too cocky. They would think that they were better swimmers than they were or strong enough to overcome the current. When they got in trouble and were in a panic, many times they would nearly drag Reagan under with them. He would have to deliver a right cross to the jaw to knock them out. For this reason some of these guys resented the fact that he saved them. They were probably jealous. The girls loved him because of his physique, good looks and tanned body. One lady said that a girlfriend of hers nearly drowned trying to get Reagan to save her. 

  Reagan would work during swimming season 12 hour days, 7 days a week. On one particular night in August he was getting ready to leave while helping the owner close up the bath house. It was 9:30 P.M. but four teenagers, 2 boys and 2 girls, entered the swimming area illegally from downriver for a night swim. One of the boys named James Raider got in trouble out in the deep water and was sucked under. Reagan heard a lot of splashing  and ran out and dove into the water swimming blindly with only his instincts to guide him. Reagan found the boy and was able to drag him to shore. The boy wasn't breathing and Reagan administered artificial respiration. After a few minutes he responded and Reagan and the other swimmers gave a sigh of relief. This was the second near drowning in two weeks. The rescue made the front page of the Dixon newspaper on August 3, 1928. It was Reagan's 28th save and the paper would keep up with how many people Reagan saved after this to the delight of the readers. When he left the job after the 1932 season he was officially credited with saving the lives of 77 people. He saved a 78th person when he returned on a visit to Lowell Park to see a lifeguard buddy of his. The buddy asked him to keep an eye on things while he went to the restroom. In later years when he was a disc jockey in Des Moine Iowa he saved people at a swimming pool there and once in California he rescued a person as Governor of California at the age of 56. These rescues in my opinion probably had a great impact on Ronald Reagan. They helped prepare him for the greatest role that he would ever play as President of the United States. In my mind Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of my lifetime and one of the five greatest presidents ever.          

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Islamic Creep In Murfreesboro and Middle Tennessee

The Murfreesboro Mosque


  I wrote an editorial to the Murfreesboro Tn. Daily News Journal in October 2010. The paper entitled it "Beware of creep of Islamic faith". At the time I wasn't sure how I felt about a large Islamic Mosque being built in my community. For many years, like most people today, I had been indoctrinated by the public schools to believe in a so-called separation of church and state. That America was to tolerate all religions and that our local, state and federal governments were to be religion neutral. In the early 1990's I read a book by the Reverend Bill Murray called "Let Us Pray". This book challenged my interpretation of the 1st Amendment and it carried a lot of weight since it was written by the son of the notorious atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hare. Bill's mom used him as a pawn in her famous legal case in 1963 that effectively ended organized school prayer in America. Bill described his mom as a bitter, angry, promiscuous woman who had left her first husband for a married man who refused to leave his wife and Bill was the product of this affair. Even though her boyfriend refused to marry her she took his last name of Murray. He said that her atheism was based on his mothers anger at God rather than an intellectual basis. I remember her debating various preachers during the 1960's and 70's and it was this anger that came across to me. He said that in the early sixties she took him and his brother to France in an attempt to defect to the Soviet Union after she declared herself to be a communist. However she returned to the United States because the Soviets refused her entry. Even they were smart enough to see that she was trouble. Just a few days after returning to the United States she took Bill to enroll him in the Baltimore public school system. While walking toward the principals office she overheard a class being led in their morning prayer along with the pledge of allegiance. She went off on the principal and threatened a lawsuit. As a compromise the school system offered to allow Bill the opportunity not to participate in the prayer. She refused this offer and as they say the rest is history. I have told this story to illustrate the kind of riff-raff that we allow to push the silent majority of us around. The case that set the stage for Madalyn Murray O'Hare was Everson vs. the Board of Education in 1947. The Supreme Court overturned nearly 200 hundred years of consistent rulings in regards to the 1st Amendment and basically said that there existed a separation of church and state and that the government was to be religion neutral. This was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. I will go into greater depth later on this. 

  My opinion toward the mosque has changed since I wrote this editorial. I believe that we should have never allowed it to be built. This mosque, in my opinion, is part of an attempt by the Muslim Brotherhood to overwhelm America with the Islamic religion in the same way that Europe has been overwhelmed. Their goal is to institute Sharia Law all across America. They have come right into the belt buckle of the Bible belt. To me the Muslim Brotherhood's methods are even more sinister than Al Qaeda. Islam is not a religion of peace but of hate. That can be easily proven. I tolerate all other religions because even though there are vast differences in belief they all believe in peaceful coexistence. All except the Muslims. Not long after I moved to Rutherford County in 1979 the Buddhists established a temple on Old Nashville Highway. I never had a problem with them moving here. Other than a few minor incidents of vandalism the people of Rutherford County have been good neighbors to these people and have accepted them with open arms. Although my Christian beliefs are vastly different from the Buddhists I celebrate the fact that I live in a country that truly is tolerant of other religions. However the people moving into Rutherford County to establish this mosque and grow the Muslim community here are part of an insidious plot to establish Sharia law and overwhelm Middle Tennessee with the Muslim culture sponsored by the Muslim Brotherhood. Does this mean that all Muslims are violent and intolerant? No, it is safe to say that the majority are peace loving. Unfortunately there is a large minority that take the Koran literally. For example the Koran repeatedly exhorts Muslims to "strive in the way of Allah" and it's praise for those who do so. Surah 2:218; 4:95; 9:19-20; 9:41; 49:15. In Islamic tradition "striving in the way of Allah means Jihad war against the non-Muslim world. There is a promise of reward for all who answer the call. The Koran urges Muslims to make Jews and Christians "feel themselves subdued". Muslims are urged to war with with Christians and Jews forever. "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah". Also "slay them wherever you catch them" surah 2:191. This doesn't sound like a peaceful religion to me. The following is my letter to the editor, the letter from the professor and my response to the professor. 

To the Editor:

When the issue first came up as to building a mosque in Murfreesboro I was somewhat hesitant to take a stand. I am a proponent of religious liberty, regardless of how distasteful that religion is to me on a personal level. I was stationed in an Islamic country in the military, studied it in college, and have read a lot about it since September 11, 2001. Islam would fit the definition of a totalitarian system rather than a religion. Similar to communism in that it seeks world dominance and like communism Islam has its "useful idiots" in leftist communities in this country and abroad. They work to promote the Islamic agenda at the expense of our hard won constitutional liberties. For the proponents of the mosque who are non-Muslim, but buy into the lie that it is a peaceful religion, I would suggest that you do two things. First study the original intent behind the First Amendment regarding religious liberty. Second, consider the possibility that the minority of Muslims who are trying to kill us, and subject us to their Islamic law, are the true practitioners of the faith, and the majority who do not want to kill us are not true Muslims.

During the Civil War Lincoln lamented the fact that both North and South prayed to the same God but both can't be right. Lincoln was wrong in one respect. The God that I worship never condoned slavery, nor does he condone senseless acts of violence by a so-called religion, on his behalf. I am still undecided as to whether the mosque should be built. Just be knowledgeable of what is coming to a neighborhood near you.


Greg Segroves

Diane St.

  A few days later I received the following letter from a college professor who taught US and medieval history. I am presenting the letter in its entirety, minus the name and address of the professor.


24-October-2010

Dear Mr. Segroves

  I shall do what you asked: I shall study the First Amendment regarding religious liberty and I shall consider the possibility that Muslim extremists are mainline. Okay---done. Since I teach US History at the college level, I am very well versed in the First Amendment and its intents (the Federalist Papers amongst other things) and its penumbra. Yep, Islam qualifies for full and unconditional support from the First Amendment. No problem. Since I am also a medieval historian, trained at the PHD level (which means I am very much an expert) and teach about Islam, I am also well-versed with Islam in all sorts of ways (and ever since the first oil embargo bit into my lifestyle in 1973, I have been very attentive to all things Middle Eastern; and as a military historian I have been likewise interested in all things Arab-Israeli). Nope, the extremists are on the fringes; and the majority of Muslims who do not want to kill us are true Muslims. So no problem then at all with the Mosque going up, and we should welcome it and many more. Case closed. But wait. What about your erroneous point of view regarding Islam? You state that you have read about Islam, studied it in college, and have seen it up front. Obviously then, if you conclude that it is a "totalitarian system rather than a religion", you must not have done too good of a job of understanding Islam. As a professional educator, I award you a D for your efforts then. You need to study harder and without prejudice.

  Besides, your conclusion about Islam could likewise fit Christianity to a T- which stands for totalitarian. Christianity seeks world dominance; and wants to put all under its law. And it has its useful idiots---like those morons who want to put Christian prayer back into schools ( where it has no business and is a clear violation of the First Amendment) or who want to set up the Ten Commandments on public property (again, unconstitutional). Moreover, if you examine the historical record, Christianity has been way more intolerant and imperialistic than Islam ever had (note for instance how well Jews were tolerated in Muslim countries historically than in Christian countries---do remember that Zionism was an outgrowth of Christian intolerance not Muslim; and Islam never committed pogroms or the holocaust).

  Sadly the only thing coming to me in a neighborhood near to me is the racist, ignorant intolerance of too many of my neighbors who have shown themselves, if nothing else, to be utterly unworthy of the name Americans. And if you are still undecided as to whether the mosque should be built, you are on the wrong side of this debate. The mosque should be built unconditionally and with all due speed, and many more should be planned as well. No problem.


Sincerely yours


PS And if you need any more correction, note the editorial on the other side from your letter. It concluded that "With the US Justice Department issuing an opinion this week that Islam is a religion that deserves the same constitutional protections as any other religion, it is time for Rutherford County to move past this division and become a merciful and loving place."

PPS As an ex-military man, do realize that the US military by code recognizes Islam as an official constitutionally protected religion, and chaplains have to be trained accordingly.


The following letter is my response to the professor.

Dear Mr. ____

I hope that this letter finds you and your family in good health and spirits. I appreciate you taking the time to write and express your opinion about my letter to the editor. I apologize if this letter is lengthy but you have thrown a lot at me and I want to present a fair rebuttal. I also apologize for my short comings in regard to a formal education and lack of credentials. I know that my vocabulary is limited compared to yours. When I get a chance I am going to have to look up the definition of penumbra. Sadly, I have only completed three years of college. I am, however, a proud honor graduate from the "college of hard knocks". In the words of Ross Perot, I am a "r-o-a-d-s" scholar. It is not such a bad thing to be self-educated. I am in good company with the likes of Abraham Lincoln and Harry Truman, two of my heroes. Not to compare my achievements with theirs, you understand. I was also proud to serve twenty years as an Air Force Security Policeman. Enough about me, your opinions help confirm to me that the quality of our educational system today, both on the lower and higher levels, are of pretty poor quality. I think our children are being indoctrinated rather than educated. I can say that because I was indoctrinated during the 1950's and 60's. I am sure it is worse today than it was back then. I did not begin to realize this until I was in my twenties. I am sixty years old. Our educational system had some value. I learned to read very well and if you can read you can get a poor man's P.H.D. in just one good public library.

I don't claim to be an expert in anything. I have found that the more you know the less you really know. I am positive that when it comes to Medieval History you have me beat by a country mile. So here goes nothing. The following is my opinion for whatever it's worth. Like most people today, I was taught that the First Amendment was intended to be "religion neutral". In other words, the Hugo Black interpretation of the First Amendment. Although I was raised by a Christian mother, I supported the 1963 Supreme Court decision to ban prayer from public schools. I believed this way until I read a book in my late forties that challenged my beliefs. The book was called "Let Us Pray" by William Murray. Murray is the son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the famous atheist who used William to bring about the decision banning school prayer on June 17, 1963. He gives a scholarly interpretation of the real meaning of the First Amendment and the thoughts of the framers on religious liberty. As I am sure you know, or should know, the Bill of Rights dictates what the federal government cannot do. It does not say what it can do. Secondly, the language of the First Amendment is very clear. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The First Amendment protects the states and the people from the intervention of the federal government in matters of religion.

When Jefferson wrote his famous "Wall of Separation" letter, that has been so vastly misinterpreted over the years, to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he was responding to their request, that as President he should declare a day of fasting and thanksgiving. Jefferson's reply was saying, and correctly so, that there was a "Wall of Separation" between the federal government and the state governments. He could not require the individual states to follow an edict imposed by the federal government on something as simple as a day of fasting and thanksgiving. Andrew Jackson would face the same request during his administration and he would reply in the same manner as Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. Third, there is no doubt that Jefferson and Madison believed that all religions had a right to worship as they pleased. This included the Pagan, the Jew, and the Muslim. They also believed that man had a right to practice no religion. My views are in line with Jefferson and Madison. It is probably safe to say that the majority of Americans at that time were not as open minded as Jefferson and Madison. Both, however, were advocates of states rights. They believed in the Tenth Amendment as much as they believed in the First. Jefferson and Madison fought to disestablish the Anglican Church in Virginia. They were successful with the passage of the Declaration of Rights in 1776. This was one of the three accomplishments that Jefferson was the most proud of and he had it etched on his tombstone. He was also proud of his authorship of the Declaration of Independence and of his founding of the University of Virginia. Both Madison and Jefferson would never dictate to the other states how they should worship. If an individual state wanted a state religion, or any public displays of religion, such as prayer in schools, the Ten Commandments posted in courthouses, or no religion displayed at all, that was their business. If Tennessee does not want mosques to be built it is up to the people of Tennessee regardless of how you or I feel about it. Madison and Jefferson would not have agreed with the federal governments intervention into how the states have conducted religious matters over the last one hundred years.

The modern interpretation of the First Amendment came out of the progressive movement of the late 1800's and early 1900's. The progressives have been so successful in promoting this interpretation that far too many Americans believe it. Hugo Black had an ulterior motive for issuing his ruling that effectively altered American history. He was a former Klansman and had an anti-Catholic bias. I am not a believer in the progressive concept that the Constitution is a living document that can be changed at the whim of a judge, president, or legislator. I believe in the amendment process. I am a constructionist in interpreting the Constitution. There are implied powers but in my view we live under the tyranny of a court system out of control. Unless we can find a way to bring them under control, there is not much hope for the future of this republic.

Now I would like to address your view that Christians and Jews were tolerated by Muslims. Yes, they were tolerated, but that was because Christians and Jews shared the same patriarch Abraham. What would be toleration to you would be intolerable to me. They had to submit to Islamic authority, (sharia law) and they could not seek after new converts or worship openly. If they submitted they were allowed to live. Pagans or atheists were given the chance to convert to Islam or face death. Because of military conquest of Islamic countries and colonialism there is much variance from country to country today. In countries like Saudi-Arabia and Iran, Christian Bibles are forbidden. They are routinely confiscated and burned. All outward signs of Christian worship are not allowed. Just ask our military how they were treated in Saudi-Arabia during Desert Shield and Desert Storm. There are secular countries like Turkey, where secularism is enforced by the Turkish military but even they are becoming more fundamentalist. Islam is no more monolithic than Communism is. The Communist ideology looks toward the ultimate rule of the proletariat without national borders. Nationalism has always plagued Communist states. It was the appeal to nationalism by Stalin that helped to defeat the Germans in World War II. Remember the Sino-Soviet conflicts of the 1960's. Islam has it's own problems in this regard, but the dream of Islam from the get go has been to unite the world under one giant Caliphate, living blissfully under Sharia law. This is the same goal shared by the terrorists.

You referenced to the Catholic and Christian Church of the Middle Ages and Christianity in general today trying to domin ate the world. As for today, I don't know what kind of drugs your taking, but that is the farthest thing from the truth. As for the pseudo Christian theocraciesof the Middle Ages, they are a good example of why Islam should be watched very carefully today. We want to avoid another theocracy. The thing that separates true Christians from all other religions is what Christ said. "My kingdom is not of this world". Real Christianity is based on Gods love. Love is the very essence of God's character. He would never compel a man to worship him against their will. So why should a men try to force people to worship God against their will? God does not condone the oppression and terror committed in his name.

You said that there was no pogroms or holocausts in Islam. Oh really? Every Islamic country in the world today is committed to the ultimate destruction of Israel. Islam was very friendly to the Nazi's in World War II and they rooted for Hitler when he was destroying Jews. There were Muslim SS units. There has been only one statesman to come out of Islam and he was Anwar Sadat. Sadat was brutally murdered because he dared to seek peace with Israel. The left has always championed, and rightly so, those Jews that were killed by Hitler, but today they side with a people who would gladly destroy Jews today and hate Jews as strongly as Hitler ever did. The left supports homosexual rights but fights for the rights of a people that routinely kill homosexuals. The left supports a woman's so-called "right to choose" an abortion, their rights in the workplace, and their proper place in the home, but they support a people that routinely abuse, maim, and kill women of all ages because Islam is a patriarchal society on steroids.


Mr. ____, if it were possible for Islam to become the dominant religion in America, people like you would be the first to lose their heads. I hope that you will least elevate my grade to a C on this paper. Then again, maybe you will give me an A for effort.


Thank you

Greg Segroves


P.S. I hope you are not so naive as to believe everything that the Justice Department says. I hope you don't expect me to.

P.P.S. The left is always whining about these idiots, supposedly representing the Christian viewpoint, who are out here trying to burn construction equipment or spray painting mosques. How does this compare with watching people of all religions, including Islam, and nationalities, jumping from a burning 105 story building because of religious fanatics spreading hatred and division? How does that compare with watching a man getting his head sawed off with a dull knife on You-tube while he is alive and screaming? How does that compare with unarmed soldiers at Ft. Hood being gunned down by a fellow soldier that just happens to be Islamic? If I continued with all the examples of Islamic people spreading hate and division this letter might weigh 500 pounds, so I will stop here.

I want to add here that in 1915 Turkey went to war against the Triple Entente alliance of Britain, France and Russia. Turkey was still the Ottoman Empire and Muslim. However in Eastern Turkey where I was stationed in 1970 and 71 there were two million Christian Armenians. By 1918 and the end of World War I the Muslim Turks slaughtered 1.5 million Armenians by every means available. Many were starved to death, tortured, shot and hacked in pieces with axes and any sharp instrument that they could get their hands on.

Pro Mosque Demonstrators

Anti-Mosque Demonstrators





   



        



          



Sunday, April 27, 2014

Saul Alinsky's Thirteen Rules For Radicals



  Saul Alinsky was a modern day Niccolo Machiavelli. This is the opening paragraph to his 1971 book Rules For Radicals. "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away" Alinsky was born on January 30, 1909 and dropped dead of a heart attack on June 12 1972. He was born into an orthodox Jewish family but became an agnostic. He became probably the most successful community organizer of all time. Remember that Obama got his start as a community organizer. Many leftists were influenced by his writings, including Hillary and Bill Clinton along with Barack Obama. Obama never knew him but he was influenced nevertheless. Leftists were depressed about their lack of influence at the Democratic Convention of 1968. They campaigned for the anti-war Democrat Eugene McCarthy and rioted in the streets of Chicago during the Democratic National Convention. The following is the advice that Alinsky gave these radicals. "Do one of three things. One, go find a wailing wall and feel sorry for yourselves. Two, go psycho and start bombing----but this will only swing people to the right. Three, learn a lesson. Go home, organize, build power and at the next convention, you be the delegates". This is exactly what they did. In 1972 they nominated George McGovern but America was not ready for someone as far to the left as McGovern. 

  Nixon won by one of the biggest landslides in American history. However the left had entrenched themselves in the Democratic Party and has built on that power ever since. By using Alinsky's tactics they have taken over our school boards, academia, entertainment, our media, our judicial system and much of our government. They have done this by following Alinsky's advice in the prologue of Rules For Radicals. " If the real radical finds that having long hair sets up psychological barriers to communication and organization, he cuts his hair. If I were organizing in an orthodox Jewish community I would not walk in there eating a ham sandwich, unless I wanted to be rejected so I could have an excuse to cop out. As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be---it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system.".

  The following are eight goals of the left that have been attributed to Alinsky but Snopes.com disputes this. I agree with Snopes that these goals did not originate with Alinsky but I believe they are being fulfilled everyday in this country by using Alinski's tactics. One could argue that the Democrats have pursued these policies since the presidency of Woodrow Wilson and the progressive era,

1. Health care--Control health care and you control the people.

2. Poverty-- Increase the poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

3. Debt--Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to raise taxes and this will produce more poverty.

4. Gun Control--Remove the ability to defend themselves from the government. That way you are able to create a police state.

5. Welfare--Take control of every aspect of their lives (food, housing, and income).

6. Education--Take control of what people read and listen to--take control of what children learn in school.

7. Remove the belief in God from government and schools.

8. Class Warfare--Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to spread the wealth by taking from the rich through taxes with the support of the poor. 


The following are Alinsky's thirteen rules for radicals.

1. Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

2. Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.

3. Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.

5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.

7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like going to church on Sunday mornings.

8. Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.

11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counter side; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.

12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying " You're right --- we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us.

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

I want to give my opinion now about some of these rules. First of all from an ethical standpoint I think that the whole premise of these rules is immoral. I do not believe that the ends justify the means unless your end is to save human life. For example if I were hiding Jews in my house from Hitler it would not be wrong in my view to lie to the Nazi's in order to protect them. Short of a similar scenario the ends do not justify the means. The whole tone of these Rules for Radicals as Machiavelli's suggestions to the Medici family in the Prince are satanic to me. The following are the character traits of satan and see if you see anything that you can relate to these Rules for Radicals. There are 22 names for satan or characteristics of satan given in the Bible.




1. Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12). This is Satan’s name prior to his fall, it means “star of the morning” and “shining one”.

2. Satan (Mark 4:15). This name simply means adversary. An adversary is an opponent, rival, or enemy.

3. The devil (Matthew 4:1-11). This name means slanderer. A slanderer is someone who makes a false, malicious statement, especially one which is injurious to one’s reputation.


4. The prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:2). This refers to Satan as he dominates his worldly human subjects.

5.The god of this age (2 Corinthians 4:4). This is simply a reference to Satan, revealing his rule over the present darkness of this world.

6. The king of death (Hebrews 2:14). This means that Satan has the power of death.

7. The prince of this world (John 12:31). This means that Satan is the ruler of this world.

8. The ruler of darkness (Ephesians 6:12). This name reveals Satan’s rule, authority, and cosmic power over the present darkness of this world.

9. Leviathan (Isaiah 27:1). This name is a description of a powerful dragon-like creature.

10. The dragon (Revelation 12:7). This is another name used for Satan, the accuser.

11. The deceiver (Revelation 20:10). This name reveals Satan as one who lies to trick or mislead.

12. Apollyon (Revelation 9:11). This name means a destroyer. A destroyer is someone who causes damage beyond use or repair.

13. Beelzebub (Matthew 12:24). This name for Satan means “the lord of flies,” or “the lord of dung,” or “the dung god.”

14. Belial (2 Corinthians 6:15). This name is the personification of all that is evil.
\
15. The wicked one (Matthew 13:38). This name reveals that Satan is evil or mischievous by nature.


16. The tempter (1Thessalonians 3:5). This name reveals that Satan does provoke to cause people to do wrong.

17. The accuser of the brethren (Revelation 12:10). This means Satan charges or places blame or fault on a follower of Christ.

18. An angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14-15). This name reveals Satan as a deceiver.

19. A liar (John 8:44, Genesis 3:4-5). This name reveals that Satan intentionally gives false information.

20. A murderer (John 8:44). This name reveals that Satan deliberately kills.

21. The enemy (Matthew 13:39). This name reveals that Satan is hostile towards, feels hatred towards, opposes the interests of, and intends to hurt God Himself. 

22. A roaring lion (1 Peter 5:8). This name describes Satan’s destructive threat.

I want to now analyze Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and how Republicans, Conservatives and Christians can combat them.

Rule #1- Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

I want to use a history lesson to illustrate how this tactic can be defeated. During the Civil War the South had a population of 9 million people. Five million whites and 4 million blacks of which most were slaves. The South was mostly agricultural with little heavy industry.It's rail system compared to the North was vastly inferior. The North on the other hand had 22 million people of whom the vast majority were white. It had an abundance of heavy industry. It's agricultural capacity was even greater than the South and it had thousands of miles of railroad track. Yet the Civil War lasted four long bloody years costing billions in today's dollars and costing almost one million lives. The war in my opinion should not have lasted over a year had the North had the right Generals leading the army and the right strategy from the very start. The reason the North failed, especially in the Eastern theater, was that Northern commanders operated from a position of weakness. They always outnumbered Lee but they attributed more power to Lee than he actually possessed. For example McClellan could have defeated Lee if he had just used the same strategy in 1862 as Grant employed in 1864. Grant knew that he outnumbered Lee. Had much more food and resources at his disposal than Lee. Lee defeated Grant in every battle from May of 1864 until the very last days of the Civil War when Lee was simply overwhelmed by attrition losing at Five Forks, Saylors Creek and Appomattox. However Grant simply used his strength in numbers and persistence to defeat Lee. No matter if he lost a battle against Lee he never let up on the pressure. Lee could not rest, find food for his men or have the means to re-enforce his army. McClellan on the other hand had as many troops and resources at his disposal as Grant but he was always working under the assumption that he was outnumbered by first Joseph E. Johnston and later Robert E. Lee. 

There are twice as many conservatives in this country, even today, as there are liberals. Even among Democrats. I am not talking about the Democratic leadership but the average Joe Democrat that you meet on the street. If you can get them to have a reasonable non-partisan discussion the conservative might discover that they agree on more than they realize. Issues like illegal immigration, gay marriage, national defense, government spending, taxation, government regulations, gun control, welfare, etc. etc. Even black people are conservative, but they vote Democratic because of a misplaced distrust of the Republican Party fostered by the race merchants such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Oprah Winfrey just to name a very few. The Democrat leadership however is great at driving a wedge between conservatives and the average Democrat on the street. They do this by using Alinsky's tactics. Reagan was a leader that realized the fact that conservatives outnumbered liberals. He was a political Ulysses S. Grant. He appealed to a cross section of the American people. Remember the Reagan Democrats. Conservatives easily triumphed over liberals in government during the Reagan years because we had real leadership. Alinsky, just like satan, can be easily defeated. The most dangerous threat to a liberal is a conservative leader or leaders that realize that we are in the majority and operates on that principle. The most dangerous person to satan is the Christian that realizes that he has an advocate in Jesus Christ and satan holds no power over them. Alinsky's first Rule for Radicals implies Satan's characteristic of a roaring lion (1-Peter 5:8)


Rules # 4 &5-8 and 9- Number 4- Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity. Number 5- Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage. Number 8-Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose. Number 9- The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself.

The characteristics of satan that most apply to these four rules are the following. Of course the name satan, Mark 4:15, which means rival or enemy. The devil, Matthew 4:1-11, which means slanderer. The prince of power of the air, Ephesians 2:2, which refers to satan as he dominates his worldly human subjects. The god of this age, 2 Corinthians 4:4. Revealing satan's rule over the present darkness of this world. The dragon, Revelation 12:7 , meaning the accuser of the brethren, or the accuser. The deceiver, Revelation 20:10, one who likes to trick or mislead. A liar, John 8:44, he who gives false information. Actually all of the characteristics of Satan could apply to all of Alinsky's rules but you get the picture.

I saw Alinsky's Rules for Radicals being applied with a vengeance all through the Clinton years and many political scandals of that period. The Democrats applied them all during the Bush years and to this point in the Obama years with great success. Primarily because most Conservatives, Republicans and Christians do not know what they are up against and therefore they have no defense against it. For example whenever the right goes after the left the left counters with an accusation. Whenever you accuse satan of something he is instantly pointing his finger back at you. That is why he is called the accuser of the brethren. For example the Clinton's were breaking multiple laws and ethical standards routinely in Arkansas and Washington but they were always digging up dirt on the right so they could throw it back in their faces. Much of this dirt was innocuous compared to the continual sins of the Clinton's but it was a distraction from the real issues of corruption on their part, The media, like today, were perfectly willing partners in this duplicity. No group of people are capable of being perfect. Christians should realize this more than any group out there. There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The letter of the law is essential, both in a secular world and in a spiritual world, because it defines what is illegal and what is sin. The spirit of the law defines justice in the secular world and in the spiritual it is unmerited favor or grace. For example in the secular world the letter of the law says that it is illegal to steal. If two offenders appear before a judge guilty of shoplifting but one was a scared teenager who did a stupid thing on a dare and stole a 5.00 dollar bracelet and the other is a professional shoplifter who has stolen 5,000 dollars worth of clothes and other items under the spirit of the law the teenager would not receive as harsh of a sentence as the professional shoplifter even though the letter of the law says that both are guilty of theft. Under grace both the big sinner and small sinner can receive salvation.

Regardless of what you might think of Paula Jones she had a legitimate lawsuit against Bill Clinton for sexual harassment. The Supreme court unanimously agreed with her and allowed her to sue a sitting president. Judge Susan Weber Wright ruled that her case did not fit the parameters of sexual harassment That is because Paula was not in the position as a state employee under then Governor Clinton to be denied promotions, benefits or work in a hostile work environment. Clinton had State Troopers initiate sexual liaisons with various women while he was governor. This was the scandal that came to be called "Trooper gate". One day State Troopers approached Paula Jones who took her to a hotel in Little Rock to meet with Clinton. There it was alleged by Paula Jones that Clinton exposed himself to her and asked for oral sex. She refused and returned to work shaken by the experience. She confided in some close female friends but otherwise she decided to keep silent about the matter. That is until she saw her name listed in the American Spectator that broke the story that came to be known as "Trooper gate". That is when she decided to sue Bill Clinton in order to clear her name. From the start Jones was characterized as trailer trash. Any woman who did not cooperate with Bill Clinton or he could not buy their silence were ridiculed. Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Wiley, Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones just to name a few. The mainstream Democratic media and the Clinton's turned the Monica Lewinsky affair into nothing but an inappropriate sexual affair. The real issue was obstruction of justice. Clinton perjured himself, lied to the American people, and used Monica Lewinsky to encourage Linda Tripp to perjure herself. The Clinton's disparaged Linda Tripp, even making fun of her appearance through their cronies on Saturday Night Live. They accused the independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr of wrongdoing. Clinton was guilty of the very same thing as Richard Nixon, obstruction of justice. The difference was that Nixon faced a hostile press, Clinton had a press that assisted in the commission of his crime by convincing the American people it was just about sex rather than impeding an American citizen from pursuing justice in the American judicial system. I use this one example to illustrate Alinski's Rules for Radicals at work by the Clinton's. They were also applied in Clinton's impeachment trial when Larry Flynt of Hustler magazine exposed past sexual indiscretions of certain Republicans which were distractions from the real issue which was obstruction of justice rather than just a sexual affair. It also employs Alynski's rule to make them live up to their own rules which implies to me that the Clinton's had no ethical standards to live up to. 

  Finally, I want to talk about rules 10 and 13. Rule #10 The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign. Rule # 13- Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Everyday we hear of a new initiative from the left. Assaults on our religious freedoms and freedom of speech as protected by the 1st Amendment or our gun rights that are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Pressure from homosexual rights groups trying to force their lifestyle down our throats. Radical Feminist groups, animal rights, radical environmentalists and civil rights groups, or supposed black leaders like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton who are constantly playing the race card for their own personal gain. Pressure from politicians led by people like Obama, Pelosi and Reid and the mainstream media or what I like to call the state run media. It is constant and our side has virtually no defense against it because we have no real leadership. Many conservatives like myself realize what has to be done but most politicians are too corrupt and weak to be real leaders. When they use Alinski's 13th rule Pick the target, freeze it and polarize it so-called conservatives back down. We are rooting for them to stand their ground but usually they never do. For example when Phil Robertson stood his ground after being criticized for expressing his opinion about homosexuals he was called anti-gay and fired by A&E Network. Phil stood his ground and conservatives rallied around him and A&E backed down. By standing firm he gave those of us who have similar views, because we make up the majority, to make our power felt. 

  The same was true in the case of Chick-Filet. Everyday average citizens rallied around them to the point that Chick-Filet is one of the largest fast food chains in America. Liberals are able to freeze, polarize, and personalize their target only if their target cares about what the left says about them. If the target holds a valid opinion such as that of Phil Robertson, that is based on valid religious beliefs and common sense, then he has nothing to be sorry for. The way that the left polarizes and personalize is to call people names. For example if you are white and do not support quotas in hiring that does not make you a racist. If you oppose Barack Obama that does not necessarily make you a racist. If you criticize Jesse Jackson or if you thought that George Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon Martin, or if you thought that O.J. Simpson was guilty, you are not necessarily a racist. If you are a male against abortion, government funded abortions, government funded birth control, or women in combat you are not necessarily a sexist. If you are against homosexual marriage, homosexuals in the military, and homosexuals being able to adopt children, you are not necessarily a homophobe. The left uses name calling to shut people up, and to shut down legitimate debate because their side cannot win the argument in a one on one debate. They can only win by bullying. Most people are sensitive and conscientious. Nobody wants to be thought of as a racist, sexist, homophobe, Islamophobe, or any other kind of "phobe". The key to successfully defending the conservative position and yourself is simple. First, you must be secure in what you believe. Defend what you know to be true and don't be rattled if you are presented with information that seems to be damaging to your position. Don't try to defend what you don't know. After further research you will usually find the answer. If you realize that you are wrong don't be afraid to change your mind but only after you are overwhelmed with evidence to the contrary. I have found that in most cases liberals are very uninformed and many border on outright stupidity. I can count on one hand those liberals that have ever given me a real debate and a run for my money. I respect these people because we had a legitimate exchange of ideas without name-calling or argument. We disagreed agreeably and parted amiably. 

  With most liberals the conversation usually goes like this. When you ask a liberal a valid question that he or she cannot answer, a favorite tactic of theirs is to change the subject by them asking you a question that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Don't allow them to change the subject. Keep pounding home the point. When they start throwing out names like racist, homophobe, sexist or whatever don't let it bother you. Just laugh it off. I have at one time or another been called every name in the book but most liberals know they are not going to roll me over by the time we part company. The bottom line is that you cannot allow them to silence you. That is their goal. We outnumber them. It is time for us to tell them to "shut up and sit down" every time they try to bully us with their ridiculous notions of political correctness in our schools, our courts, in government, the media, or wherever political correctness raises it's ugly head in society. We are a massive army waiting to be led but we have no leadership. Napoleon once said that there is no such thing as bad soldiers, only bad generals. 

                 


         





       

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Juliette Briers Tackles Death Valley


  My nephew, Larry Sircy, is a truck-driver and is very familiar with the wide open vastness of the American West. We were talking about how unforgiving it can be even for the modern traveler. I have driven or ridden various routes to Oregon, California and Colorado numerous times over the last 45 years. Like the time I drove through the desert of northern Nevada and I only saw one gas station and one car in a 200 mile stretch of highway. I was sweating bullets the whole time, fearful of breaking down in the middle of nowhere with a young wife and baby. Or the danger of driving in the winter time in sub-zero cold in blizzards that can strand you and completely bury your car in a few short hours. Larry and I were trying to imagine what the early pioneers traveling by wagon train and other means had to endure during the westward migration. One such story is of a hardy pioneer woman named Juliette Briers who was married to the Reverend John Wells Briers. Juliette was born in September 1813 in Vermont. She was the mother of three sons aged 8, 7, and 4. When her wagon train set out for Los Angeles in October 1849 there were 80 wagons, 250 people, and 1,000 head of horses, oxen and cattle. She was a small woman but was probably the toughest of the group. She put the packs on the oxen in the morning, took them off at night, lit the cooking fires, cooked the meals, took care of the children, and nursed her husband through dysentery. She worked a lot because her husband was too tired to work most of the time according to one witness. She would be seen with one child on her back, one in her arms and holding one by the hand while walking on the trail. Once when an oxen got stuck chest deep in mud she refused to leave the animal until someone came and helped her get it out. Everyone helped but her husband who sat on his butt nearby while everyone else worked. He was described by one of the men disgustedly as "an invalid preacher who had never earned his bread by the sweat of his brow". 

  It was just two years after the Donner party disaster and the leader of the wagon train, Captain Jefferson Hunt wanted to avoid the route through the Sierra Nevada. Hunt took a wrong turn but later corrected himself. Many in the wagon train lost faith in Hunt's judgement as a result. Four families decided to break off from the wagon train in November. Reverend Brier's family was one of the four families. This was during the California Gold Rush and Brier had gold fever. They passed a wagon train going in the opposite direction and they gave the Brier party a bogus map. The Reverend Brier spotted mountains and 72 people turned back. They would show up in Los Angeles 7 weeks later without any problems. The Briers along with 27 wagons continued on to what would become a nightmare.They entered into a barren and sun baked valley. It was a vast wasteland where they never saw a living thing. After a few days they ran low on water. Reverend Brier went on ahead to look for water leaving Juliette to care for the kids and cattle by herself. She said "I was sick and weary... and poor little Kirke gave out, and I carried him on my back, barely seeing where I was going. Night came, and we lost track of those ahead". She crawled on her hands and knees in the moonlight. About 3:00 A.M. she found her husband sleeping comfortably and the others camped on a creek that they named Furnace creek.

  On Christmas day someone suggested that she and the children stay at the creek until they could come back for her. She bluntly told them "I have never kept the company waiting, neither have my children. Every step I take will be towards, California". Twenty miles into the desert their tongues began to swell and their lips cracked. Oxen began to die. Some of the men climbed nearby mountains and returned with snow in their shirts to use for drinking water for the people and animals. Meals sometimes consisted of bones boiled in ox blood. The first to die was the Reverend Mr. Fish who was traveling to the gold fields to find enough money to pay off his church's debts. Eventually four people would die before they managed to leave this horrible valley. As they were leaving one of the men turned and said "Goodbye Death Valley". So this is how Death Valley got it's name. It is the lowest point on the north American continent and one of the hottest. Reunions were held in later years of the survivors and all agreed that Juliette Briers was the heroine of the group.




              

Sunday, April 20, 2014

James F. Reed And The Donner Party

James F. Reed And His Wife
  James F. Reed was an Illinois merchant that lived close to Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln in Springfield Illinois. Reed and his family joined a wagon train in 1846 that was headed for California. After reaching Wyoming Reed's family along with several other families decided to break away from the larger wagon train and take a different route. One of the men in Reed's group was named George Donner. This group would eventually come to be known as the infamous Donner party. When the Donner party reached Ft. Bridger it made the mistake of taking a path called the Hastings Cut-Off. This path caused them to lose about forty days which would eventually place them in a life or death situation. During this period some of the men's nerves became frayed causing tempers to run short. An argument broke out between two of Reed's companions. Reed tried to break up the argument but one of the men beat Reed with a bull whip. In an effort to defend himself Reed stabbed the man in the chest. It was decided by the Donner Party that Reed would have to leave. His wife and family could stay but he would have go. He was sent off without a gun or food into the wilderness. On November 1, 1846, just three miles from the summit of the Sierra Nevada mountains the Donner party was trapped by heavy snow. It would be stuck there for over three months. In the meantime people began dying of hunger and the members of the wagon train resorted to cannibalism in order to survive. Then in February 1847 who should appear but James Reed leading a rescue party. He had nearly died of starvation himself but he eventually found Sutter's Fort California on October 28, 1846. He tried to organize a relief expedition but was blocked by snow. The Mexican War had started in May of that year and he was needed to fight. On January 2, 1847 he fought in the battle of Santa Clara. Finally in February citizens and Naval Officers of San Francisco helped fund and lead another rescue mission along with Reed into the Sierra Nevada. Reed found his entire family alive but separated over a period of several days. George Donner was alive but would be dead in a few days of gangrene. Out of 79 people only 45 survived.
The route of the Donner party

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Lucinda "Granny" White

Grave of Granny White
  Lucinda "Granny" White was 60 years old when she moved to Nashville in 1803 from North Carolina with her two sons Thomas and Willis. Her husband Zechariah died sixteen years earlier in North Carolina. She started selling her baked goods from a stand on Granny White Pike. She eventually made enough money to buy fifty acres of land in what is now the Inn's of Granny White Subdivision. She built a tavern there in 1812 that became known for it's good food, hospitality, comfortable beds and home brewed whisky. The tavern served the travelers coming in from the Natchez Trace four miles to the west. Her children gave her the name "Granny" and the name was soon taken up by her customers. Granny White died about 1816 at the age of 73. This is how Granny White Pike got it's name. During the battle of Nashville there was a lot of fighting around the site of Granny Whites Tavern. After the collapse of Confederate General John Bell Hoods left flank on Shy's Hill the Confederate Army was routed and using Franklin road as it's primary route of retreat. Union Calvary tried to cut across from Granny White Pike by a country road now called Maryland Way. Hood dispatched General James Chalmers to stop this attempt to cut off Hoods retreat. Barrels and other debris was strewn across the road to slow down the Union attack. This became known as the battle of the Barrels or Barricade. It was one of the most violent cavalry encounters of the war. Much of it occurred at night and during the battle Rucker accidentally rode into a group of Union Cavalrymen and realizing he was surrounded engaged the Union commander Colonel Spaulding in a sword fight using cavalry sabers. Their arms became entangled and somehow they swapped sabers. Years later the sabers were returned to the original owners. Colonel Rucker was shot in the arm and captured. The battle lasted until about midnight. The Confederates were successful in buying time for Hood's army to retreat. The fight between Colonel Rucker and Colonel Spaulding is etched in stone at the entrance of Princeton Hills subdivision off of Murray Lane. In the 1970's I hunted for Civil War relics on a very steep hill overlooking the Granny White grave and tavern site. I found many brass shell casings and Burnside bullets which indicated a lot of Cavalry action on that hill. One day as my brother-in-law Hulon and myself were descending the hill we ran into Ralph Emory, who was also a relic hunter. I have run into him at least three times in my life and I have found that he is not the friendliest guy in the world. I hate to say that about a fellow East High graduate but that was my impression of him.

        

Monday, April 14, 2014

Charlie Parkhurst

  Charlie Parkhurst aka One-eyed Charlie, Cockeyed Charlie, or Six Horse Charlie was born in 1812 in Vermont but eventually made his way out west to California where he became a teamster and one of the most skilled stagecoach drivers in history. He was small in stature but tough. Shortly after becoming a stage driver for the California Stage Company he was kicked in the face by a horse and blinded in one eye. He began his reputation as a tough driver when a robber named "Sugarfoot" held up his stage one day. Taken by surprise his only option was to give up his strong box. Six months later the Sugarfoot hit him again but Charlie was prepared this time. He blew him away with a shotgun at point blank range. Without blinking his good eye he rode off at a full gallop leaving the robber dead in the road. He was an expert shot and an expert with a bull whip. He could cut a cigar in half at fifteen paces while a man held it in his mouth. On one occasion he rolled his stagecoach and broke several ribs but he never saw a doctor. Another time he took his stage and passengers across a rain swollen bridge just before it collapsed behind him. He was also a kind person. Once, when a widow and her daughter were about to lose their home, he bought the house and returned it to the widow. Driving a stagecoach was very hard on the body. It was very hard on passengers and especially on the driver. Charlie finally retired after thirty years because of the rheumatism that he developed due to the abuse to his body. He retired to his farm in Watsonville California where he would eventually develop cancer of the tongue and died on December 29, 1879. However the following obituary was in the January 9, 1880 edition of the New York Times. ..(December 28, 1879), in a little cabin on the Moss Ranch, about six miles from Watsonville, Charley Parkhurst, the famous coachman, the fearless fighter, the industrious farmer and expert woodman died of the cancer on his tongue. He knew that death was approaching, but he did not relax the reticence of his later years other than to express a few wishes as to certain things to be done at his death. Then, when the hands of the kind friends who had ministered to his dying wants came to lay out the dead body of the adventurous Argonaut, a discovery was made that was literally astounding. Charley Parkhurst was a woman, a perfectly formed, fully developed woman... Her sex had been accidentally discovered earlier by a boy who had put her to bed drunk one night but the family had rigidly kept her secret. A doctor also discovered that she had given birth at some point but nothing was said about the fate of the baby or of it's whereabouts. She also cast a vote in an election in 1868, making her the first woman ever to vote in California.

   

Friday, April 11, 2014

The Marriage of John Hunt Morgan and Mattie Ready

Mattie Ready Morgan and John Hunt Morgan
  Confederate General John Hunt Morgan married Mattie Ready on Sunday December 14th 1862. Mattie's father Charles Ready was a former U.S. Congressman and the son of the Charles Ready who was the founder of Readyville The marriage was the result of a a whirlwind romance. During the first occupation by the Union Army of Murfreesboro after the fall of Nashville in February 1862 a Union soldier asked Mattie her name. She had never met Morgan before but she spouted off "It's Mattie Ready now, but by the grace of God one day I hope to call myself the wife of John Morgan". When Morgan heard about Mattie's response he felt that he had to meet her. He got his opportunity after Murfreesboro was captured on July 13, 1862 by Nathan Bedford Forrest. Morgan soon made his camp in Murfreesboro and Mattie's father out for a stroll ran into Morgan and invited him to his home for dinner. Charles sent a slave to tell Mattie that Morgan was coming to dinner. He told the slave to "tell Mattie that Captain Morgan is a widower and a little sad. I want her to sing for him". 

  Morgan had a tragic relationship with his first wife Becky. She delivered a stillborn baby in 1853 and developed a disease called septic thrombophiebitus, popularly known as "milk leg", an infection of a blood clot in the leg. This eventually led to amputation. Morgan and his wife became emotionally distant from each other and Becky finally died on July 21, 1861. Mattie was only 21 and Morgan was 37 but that made no difference. They fell madly in love with each other. The wedding was the social event of the season. It occurred about two weeks before the battle of Stones River when the Army of Tennessee was camped all around Murfreesboro. Many of it's officers and generals were present at the wedding. General Leonidas Polk, an Episcopalian minister before the war, conducted the ceremony with his religious vestments worn over his uniform. The wedding took place at the Ready house that fronted East Main Street near the courthouse where the Bank of America stands today. Some of the Generals attending were Generals Bragg, Cheatham, Hardee, and former Vice President of the United States, John Breckinridge. Jefferson Davis had visited the army during this time but had left earlier in the day and couldn't stay for the wedding. As it turned out Mattie Ready went from young bride to widow in just 630 days. 

  Morgan was a bold and successful Confederate cavalryman who had won many battles. The biggest of which was the battle of Hartsville. Yet his luck began to run out in the summer of 1863 when he led about a thousand men on a raid that took him as far north as Ohio. He won many skirmishes but eventually all of his men were defeated and captured by the Union Army and sent to northern prison camps. Morgan and some of his men were sent to the Ohio State Penitentiary. He had caused much panic in the north and it was the farthest point reached by Confederate forces during the war but it was an ill-advised raid. Morgan escaped on November 27, 1863, the same day that Mattie gave birth to a baby girl who died a few days before Morgan was able to make it home. She made him promise that he would never allow himself to be captured again. This probably led to his death. On September 4, 1864 he was surrounded by the Union Army after being betrayed by the lady of the house that he was staying with in Greenville Tennessee. Instead of surrendering he was shot in the back as he was trying to escape. The following is from an eyewitness account. “His body was thrown over a mule, paraded around town before being dumped in a muddy ditch, ... devoid of almost all clothing ... while his enemies shouted and screamed ‘in savage exultation’” certainly couldn’t have made the burden any easier for Mattie to bear. Others feel that he chose death over surrender and indefinite separation from Mattie. Perhaps the covenant he and Mattie had agreed upon previously entered into his decision to gamble on life, rather than death. This was on Sept. 4, 1864 —— the same day that Atlanta fell" .Mattie was pregnant again, grief-stricken and seven months later she gave birth to another baby girl on April 7, 1865 in Augusta Georgia. Two days before the surrender of Robert E. Lee. She named the baby Johnnie Hunt Morgan after her husband. The baby was a comfort to her and she eventually returned to Murfreesboro. Mattie remarried in 1873 to Judge William H. Williamson of Lebanon, a one-armed Confederate veteran. She was such a staunch rebel that she broke off a romance once between Johnnie and a man who had Union sentiments during the war. Mattie eventually had four children by Judge Williamson but Mattie would die at the age of 47 on November 16, 1887 of tuberculosis. Six months after her mothers death Johnnie married a Presbyterian minister and on June 28, 1888 at age 23 she died of typhoid fever shortly after her honeymoon. As a result John Hunt Morgan left no living heirs.
Mattie Ready

The Wedding

Johnnie Hunt Morgan

              

Thursday, April 10, 2014

"Hammerin" Hank Aaron

  "Hammerin" Hank Aaron recently compared the modern day Republican Party with the KKK. Hank is bitter. This was evident in his autobiography that I read a few years ago. He feeds this bitterness by periodically reading the hate mail that he received during his run for breaking "Babe" Ruth's home run record. Hank, it is time to work on forgiveness fella. Forgiveness is for your benefit, not those idiots who wronged you. Secondly, black people resent being judged for the actions of the few blacks that fuel stereotypes. I resent being judged for the few bigots that wrote you those letters. I was a 24 year old white man who was pulling for you to break the record along with the majority of white people in this country. Third, as far as the Republican Party being the modern KKK you need to take a long hard look at the racist past of the Democratic Party first. I will acknowledge that Richard Nixon made a huge mistake pursuing his "Southern Strategy" in 1968. This was ironic because Nixon was one of the most open-minded white men of his generation. He was a life-long, card carrying member of the N.A.A.C.P. However he made a Machiavellian decision to seek after the votes of Southern white males upset over the passage of the 1964 and 65 Civil Rights Acts. This policy was followed by Republican candidates for years. 

  In reality Nixon was one of the most progressive presidents in regards to race that ever held the office. Although I disagree with quota's in hiring he is the one responsible for that policy. His rhetoric was meant to attract votes but his actual policies did not match the rhetoric. Some racists like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms switched parties but others like Lester Maddox, George Wallace, and Robert Byrd, who was an actual Klan member, stayed with the Democratic Party. Wallace and Byrd also made Machiavellian decisions by issuing apologies because their constituencies had changed overnight. They had a D in front of their name so they got a pass. Then again the Republican Party was full of people who were Conservative but not racist or people like myself who were former "Scoop" Jackson or Sam Nunn type Democrats who had no where else to go but to the Republican Party on election day. When I finally wised up in the early 1980's I left the Democratic Party and became an independent. That bigoted generation that embittered Hank is dying out. Are their bigoted Republicans today? Yes, I run into them occasionally. However it is the solid Democratic voters that amuse me. I know many that voted presidential election after presidential election for the Democrat, regardless of how corrupt or liberal they were. Now that there is a black Democrat in office their opposition of Obama is as intense as mine. Hank, I love you man but it is high time to get that chip off of your shoulder. .

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Cynthia Ann Parker

Cynthia nursing her daughter


  Cynthia Ann Parker was born in 1825 and died in 1871. She was from Illinois and when she was nine or ten her family moved to central Texas where they built Fort Parker. The family built a community around the church of her uncle Elder John Parker who was the leader of the Texas branch of the Primitive Baptist Church. They built thick walls and the fort was protected by Texas Rangers. On May 19, 1836 the fort was attacked by several tribes of \Indians which included the Comanche. Several defenders were killed and five were captured from the fort. Within six years all of the captives were returned to their families with the exception of Cynthia. At first she was mistreated by the Indians but after awhile she was adopted by an Indian family who raised her as if she were their own daughter. She lived with the Comanche for twenty-five years. She totally adapted to the Indian lifestyle and turned away from her white family. Every time they attempted to negotiate for her return she refused. She married a Comanche named Peta and had three children, two boys and a girl. Her oldest was Quanah, Pecos and a girl named Topsannah. 

  Quanah became a fierce warrior and Chief. In 1860 Texas Rangers attacked Peta's camp and he was able to escape with his sons Quanah and Pecos. Several Indians were captured including Cynthia and her infant daughter Topsannah. They discovered that Cynthia had blue eyes and was a white woman. About this time they took her to Ft. Worth and had her photographed. She is nursing her daughter in the picture and her hair is cut short. This was the Comanche sign of mourning because she thought that her husband had been killed. On April 8, 1861 the Texas legislature voted her a 100.00 dollar per month pension for five years and gave her some land. They appointed Isaac and Benjamin Parker her guardians but she never adapted to white ways. She was shuttled from one family to another and tried to escape several times but was always caught and returned. Finally they began locking her in her room to prevent her from escaping. In 1863 Topsannah died from influenza and Cynthia seemed to lose the will to live. She died of influenza at the age of 43 in 1871. She was buried nearby in Fosterville Cemetery. Quanah had her moved to a cemetery in Oklahoma. Then after Quanah died he was buried at Ft. Sill Oklahoma and Cynthia was re-interred again to be placed by the side of Quanah. 



Quanah Parker


The Surrender of Bataan / April 9, 1942


American POW's after the surrender of Bataan


  Many people are familiar with Lee's surrender at Appomattox on April 9, 1865 but an even larger surrender occurred on April 9 1942. It was the largest surrender of American forces in history. The surrender of 78,000 Filipino and American troops to the Japanese on the Bataan peninsula in the Philippines. There were 12,000 Americans and 66,000 Filipino's. Much of the blame would have to fall on Douglas MacArthur who allowed his Air Force to be destroyed on the ground at Clark Air Force Base a full day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Whether MacArthur could have beaten the Japanese with an Air Force is debatable but there is no doubt that he could have slowed the Japanese advance. MacArthur had the potential to be America's greatest general of World War II but his monumental ego caused his name to be associated with two of our greatest defeats. The fall of the Philippines and our defeat at the hands of the Chinese in November 1951 during the Korean War.

This was the beginning of the hell of the Bataan Death March and three years in Japanese P.O.W. camps. Six hundred Americans and and five thousand Filipino's died on the march due to starvation, exposure to extreme heat and Japanese brutality. They were kicked, beaten and bayoneted when they fell out of line or could no longer walk. As Japanese soldiers passed by in trucks they made a sport of clubbing POW's with their rifle butts. Whenever a man weakened and fell out of line they were bayoneted, or shot. Many men were decapitated by officers using Samurai swords if they stopped to drink from filthy roadside ponds or puddles. When they arrived at the camps another 1,000 Americans and 16,000 Filipino's died of starvation, disease and brutality. The Japanese Commander General Homma Masaharu was tried and convicted of war crimes after the war and was executed by firing squad on April 3, 1946.
General Wainwright surrendering to Japanese General Homma






Carrying the wounded to Camp Odonnell