Friday, June 27, 2014

Why Obama Will Never Be Impeached

  I can't tell you how many times lately that someone has told me they believe that Obama will be impeached because of the many scandals that he is involved in or of the many ways that he has abused the Constitution. His chances of being impeached are slim to none and Slim left town. I say that because only Republicans are forced to leave office over high crimes and misdemeanors. Richard Nixon was forced out of office for trying to cover-up a two bit attempt at breaking into the Democratic headquarters in the Watergate office complex. A crime that he probably didn't know about but because of his paranoia about being politically embarrassed he ordered a cover-up of the crime. And yes he should have been impeached for what he did. I don't give a Republican politician a pass for wrongdoing. Although I was still a Democrat when I voted for Nixon in 1972 because I considered McGovern too far to the left. Now I want you to consider the fact that on November 7, 1972 Nixon won the fourth largest landslide in American history. He won every states electoral votes with the exception of Washington D.C. and the state of Massachusetts. Nixon won 60.7% of the popular vote and he won 18 million more popular votes than George McGovern. The largest margin of any election in American history. On August 8, 1974, less than two years later, faced with the possibility of impeachment and removal from office, over the Watergate scandal, Nixon resigned from office. How does a man who won an election of historic proportions fall from grace so quickly when we have had two Democratic presidents, who have made Nixon look like a choirboy, compared to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, but they have survived scandal after scandal. In 1996 Bill Clinton won re-election with 49% of the popular vote. In 2012 Obama won re-election with 51.1% of the popular vote. Yet both of these presidents have survived, in my opinion, far more serious political scandals than Richard Nixon was involved in.

  I think there are several reasons that Nixon went down but Clinton survived and Obama will ultimately survive.. Nixon's White House taping system recorded pretty much everything that was said in the Oval Office which would ultimately provide the smoking gun tape where Nixon could be heard ordering the C.I. A. to impede the F.B.I.'s investigation of the Watergate break-in. Taping in the Oval Office began as far back as Franklin Roosevelt but Nixon's system was ultimately his downfall. The Democrats were in control of both houses of Congress. This is important when you are talking about a possible impeachment and removal of a president when the presidents enemies are in control of Congress. This had a huge impact on Nixon's ultimate decision to resign rather than face the possibility of impeachment and removal. With Obama the Republicans only control the House. They could probably impeach him but removal would be highly improbable. Also the Republicans have shown much more integrity during political scandals involving Republicans than Democrats have shown during scandals involving Democrats. Democrats circle the wagons and defend their person to the bitter end regardless of how bad their person looks or what evidence is produced. This happens with very few exceptions. Republicans on the other hand will isolate the offending politician or ask them to resign if the evidence is overwhelming. This is what happened to Nixon. Barry Goldwater, who was the most respected Republican senator in the Senate went to Nixon and told him that he had lost the support of most of the Republicans in Congress. This visit had a huge impact on Nixon's decision to resign. Don't ever expect a ranking Democrat with the influence of a Goldwater to ever go to Obama and ask him to resign, regardless of how bad it gets for him.

  Last but not least the media plays the most important role in changing public opinion. I think anyone that is fair will admit that the mainstream media, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, HEADLINE NEWS, NPR and most major newspapers and news magazines such as USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, and Newsweek just to name a few, are simply extensions of the Democratic Party. When the Watergate break-in occurred in June of 1972 the news coverage wasn't as heavy as it would later become so Nixon's re-election chances were not affected. The Democratic mainstream media however, instigated by the bold investigative reporting of Woodward and Bernstein, who were reporters for the Washington Post, would eventually break the full implications of the Watergate scandal. This is the real scandal concerning the mainstream media. When a Republican is involved in scandal the media does it's job and perform investigative journalism. The scandal is front page news for days, weeks and months. When a Democrat is involved in scandal the scandals are ignored by the mainstream media or are under reported. It may be reported on Fox News or Conservative talk radio. Although Fox and Conservative talk radio reaches a lot of people, they do not reach the average person whose opinion can go a long way toward impacting a corrupt politicians chances of surviving a political scandal. I believe the American people will make the right decision when they are properly educated on a particular issue. 

  I will cite examples of how the mainstream media handles Democratic scandals. Clinton's relationship with Jennifer Flowers was broken by a grocery store tabloid. The Sixty Minutes producer on CBS admitted on tape that he helped the Clinton's weather the controversy surrounding Jennifer Flowers in a interview done right before the Super Bowl in 1992. Troopergate was broken by The American Spectator, a Conservative magazine. The story about the violent rape of Juanita Broderick by Bill Clinton in the late 1970's was held back by the major networks until the vote to remove Bill Clinton from office was over and he was safe from removal. The interview of Juanita Broderick by Lisa Myers on NBC would have been devastating for Clinton if the press had run the story earlier. The very next day after the story was released there was absolutely nothing more said about Juanita Broderick in the mainstream media. The story about John Edwards love child with a woman he had had an affair with while his wife was dying of cancer was broken by the National Enquirer and ignored by the mainstream media. Obama's mentor relationship with a notorious communist by the name of Frank Marshall Davis, while growing up in Hawaii, was ignored by the mainstream media when he ran for president. His relationship to left wing terrorist Bill Ayers was ignored by the media. His relationship to his radical pastor Jeremiah Wright in Chicago was ignored and under reported by the media. The many scandals of his administration like Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the I.R.S., Obamacare and the list goes on and on have been ignored or under reported. If the mainstream media would just do it's job like it did in the Watergate scandal and report the facts and let the chips fall where they may there is no way that a Bill Clinton or a Barack Obama could ever be elected. Or if elected remain in office. 

  The fact that the media only does it's job when Republicans are in office blatantly proves to me beyond a doubt that the news media is all about promoting its political ideology and nothing else. Last but not least, another reason Nixon was brought down so quickly after winning by such a wide margin in 1972 was that most communities back then did not have cable television. Nashville and Middle Tennessee only had four television stations then. Channel 8, which today is channel 2, the ABC affiliate. Channel 4, NBC and channel 5, CBS. Channel 2, which became channel 8 was PBS. WZTV Channel 17 didn't come along until 1976 and WUXP Channel 30 came along even later.Most of PBS programming back then if I remember right was primarily local. When the Watergate hearings began each network interrupted their normal programming, which was usually during the daytime when housewives and shift workers were a captive audience. Instead of watching their Soap Opera's they had to watch a Soap Opera of a different kind, the Watergate hearings. All newspapers and news magazines covered the Watergate Scandal daily and weekly. Commentators talked as if Watergate was the worst political scandal in the nations history and it was a constitutional crisis in their view. The men involved in the scandal like Haldeman, Erlichman, G. Gordon Liddy and many others were made to look not much better than Hitler's inner circle. Also Americans had fewer distractions back then to divert their attention from the news. There were no smart phones, social media, PC's or video games. And there was no Conservative media to turn to for an alternative opinion on the scandal to balance things out like we have today. No I hate to be the bearer of bad news to my Conservative friends but Obama will finish out his term barring unforseen circumstances like an assassination or a health problem. As long as Americans are served by such a pathetic mainstream media and Americans remain distracted by their electronic toys we will just continue to endure Obama.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Breaking Down The Declaration of Independence

  I have heard it said that a good writer writes what they know. Whether or not I am a good writer is questionable. I don't claim to be an expert on the Declaration of Independence but the following is what I know about the Declaration of Independence. Although Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence fifty-six men signed the final document. They were some of the most prominent men in America. A who's who of American patriots. Names like Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Rush, Robert Morris, John Adams, John Hancock, Eldridge Gerry, whose claim to fame is the term gerrymandering. Samuel Adams, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Nelson Jr.,whose house I visited while in Yorktown Virginia. Francis Lightfoot Lee, the father of Robert E. Lee. Benjamin Harrison, the ancestor of two future American presidents. Edward Rutledge whose son is buried in City Cemetery in Nashville. John Witherspoon, the ancestor of Reese Witherspoon, and Roger Sherman just to name a few. 

  The Declaration: We hold these truths to be self-evident. My interpretation: The we were these fifty-six men. They all agreed that there were certain truths. There was no rationalization or moral relativism going on here. They all agreed that these truths were self-evident. The definition of self-evident is evident in itself without proof or demonstration; axiomatic. Axiomatic means obvious, or without argument. When you look out and see the sun and the moon in the sky it is self-evident that they are there. The Declaration: That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator. My interpretation:  Notice that they acknowledged that we were created by a Creator, a supreme being. They didn't say that we evolved. The Declaration: That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. My interpretation:  John Locke, an English philosopher of the 1600's and probably the greatest influence on the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence did not believe that atheists could even be recognized as legitimate citizens in a society because you had to believe in God. An unalienable or actually inalienable right is a right that can only be given God and therefore it can only be taken away by God. Man or governments cannot legitimately take these rights away from you. If government tries it is guilty of usurpation. If enough of these rights are usurped then that government is guilty of tyranny. In order for this idea of having inalienable rights to work, you must believe in God. 

  These liberals and atheists who want to remove In God We Trust from our money and Under God from our pledge of allegiance are either nuts, grossly ignorant, or grossly indifferent to the truth. They do not recognize that God is the source of their Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness or property as Locke would call it. Atheists cannot legitimately fit into a free society that believes that it's most fundamental rights are given by the God that they do not believe in or as a liberal they are ignorant of this concept of government. As a citizen you are entitled to your life and nobody has a right to deprive you of life, or of liberty. You cannot legally sell yourself into slavery because your liberty was granted to you by God and only he can take it away. So if you cannot sell yourself into slavery then a government cannot legally usurp your freedom or enslave you. We willingly give up our individual freedoms everyday when we allow government to force us to buy medical insurance, or curtail our speech with the passage of hate crimes legislation, or tell us what we can eat or not eat. Restricting our gun rights. Telling our citizens that they are not allowed pray publicly before a sporting event, or to lead prayer in school, to have nativity scenes on the public property or to post the Ten Commandments in government buildings. The courts overruling the will of the people when they vote to ban homosexual marriage, When we give up our basic freedoms we are selling our birthright in the same way that Esau sold his birthright to Jacob. The pursuit of happiness or the right of property is one of the things that make Americans exceptional. Most indigenous societies of the world look at property as being communal. In others words that property is owned by no one or that society as a whole is the rightful owner. Americans believe that the individual can own property and that it is a God given right.

  The Declaration:  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. My interpretation:  Philosophers of Locke's era used a theoretical model called a state of nature. In a state of nature man had been created to live in a state of unrestrained liberty. Men can be selfish creatures and some abused these freedoms to the point that the state of nature became chaotic. So, to establish order in a state of nature, men gave up some of their rights in order to secure most of their rights. This is when man established government. In their eyes government was a necessary evil to establish order. In the words of Jefferson the best government was the least government. The Declaration: Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. My interpretation:  For a government to be legitimate it's citizen's must give their consent. There are two forms of consent. Direct and tacit. Those citizens present when our government was formed, such as our Founding Fathers and those citizens living under that revolutionary government gave their direct consent. Those citizens born since our founding are required to give their tacit consent. Tacit consent is given in various ways. Paying taxes, voting, serving in the military, saying the Pledge of Allegiance, serving in political office, and through various other means. The Declaration: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. My interpretation:  In a state of nature man made a social contract with government. In this contract it was understood mankind was entrusting government to maintain order but the people ultimately held the power. If government usurped rights that it was not entitled to and a case can be made that a state of tyranny exists then the government is in violation of the social contract. The people not only have the right but the duty to alter or abolish that government. This is why the right to bear arms is an inalienable right. The 2nd Amendment is not about the right to hunt. It has two purposes. The right of self defense on a personal level is an inalienable right and the right to alter or abolish government is an inalienable right. An unarmed society can do neither. John Locke said that when the thief enters your home and binds you up he not only has robbed you of your liberty but he has it in his power to rob you of your life. When government becomes the thief you have no one to appeal to but heaven. The right to bear arms is essential to overthrowing a tyrannical government. 

  The Declaration:  Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpation's, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is the right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. My interpretation: Revolution is an inalienable right but it should not be done for trivial reasons. If you advocate revolution you must be able to build a case for it. Although I agree with much of what Jefferson said about the role of government, states rights and liberty I think that he was a little radical as to how often we should have revolution. Jefferson said "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. And he also said "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." However the Declaration, which Jefferson is the primary author of wrote words advocating patience and long suffering here. We must first, like a lawyer, build a case for revolution, and then set about asking for a redress of grievances. Once we have established a case for revolution and we have given government a reasonable time in which to correct their mistakes, but they do not respond satisfactorily to our requests, then we are justified to rebel. If rebellion is successful then we establish new guards in the law to prevent future tyranny. 

  We have only had one serious challenge to our form of government in the over two hundred years of our existence. That was our American Civil War. Many in the South called it the Second American Revolution. In my view however it did not pass the test of a legitimate revolution based on our Declaration of Independence. Many Southerners have argued that the war was about the issue of States Rights rather than slavery. I disagree with this assessment. I challenge anyone to list a single state right that was being denied to the eleven Southern states that eventually seceded. In my view the war was over the issue of slavery. More specifically the expansion of slavery. If you look at the vote to secede in the various Southern States county by county, or by region, the counties and regions that were in mountainous country, primarily the Appalachian mountain range that ran through West Virginia, East Tennessee, northern Alabama, and Northern Georgia, these regions voted against secession because they were poorer areas and because of the mountains the white people owned small farms that they worked themselves and most did not own slaves or if they did they owned less than five on average. The areas of the South that voted for secession were areas that the slave populations was significant. Alexander Stephens, who was the Confederate Vice President, gave his famous Cornerstone speech on March 21, 1861 that revealed what the Confederate cause was really about. At least from the perspective of slave owners and Confederate leaders. 'Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." The North had bent over backwards to appease the South since our founding. It started with the three-fifths compromise in the American Constitution, Slaves were allowed to be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of determining congressional representation. This also benefited the North at first because slavery was legal in most Northern states when the Constitution was ratified. 

  Then in 1820 a compromise was reached called the Missouri Compromise that allowed Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state and Maine as a free state. An imaginary line was drawn at the southern border of Missouri. Any new states above that line would be free and below would be slave. Because of the Mexican War and all the new southwest territory ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ending the war new tensions arose because the Southern States were interested in the new territory in order to expand slavery into the southwest Five separate bills were passed that came to be called the Compromise of 1850.The only thing in this compromise that benefited the South was a stronger fugitive slave law which for the short term seemed to appease the South but it enraged many in the North. Then in 1854 Stephen Douglas engineered a bill called the Kansas-Nebraska Act which would allow these two territories, that were North of the Missouri Compromise line to vote slavery up or down through popular vote. This concept was called "popular sovereignty". Again this was an attempt to appease the South but it increased tensions that would ultimately lead to war. Then in 1857 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of slavery in the Dred Scott Decision. It ruled that blacks could not be American citizens, so therefore they had no legal standing to sue in Federal court and the Federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the territories. Chief Justice Roger Taney was trying to settle the slave question once and for all but it caused much consternation in the North and was another step toward war. Yet it was just another example of how a branch of the Federal government attempted to appease the South in regards to slavery. After all of these attempts to keep the South in the Union the South ended up seceding anyway. The South was determined to secede if Lincoln was elected. However Lincoln said over and over that he had no intention of interfering with slavery where it already existed. He knew that he had no Constitutional authority to do that. However he did not want slavery to spread into the new territories created by our victory in the Mexican War. The South on the other hand knew that if all of this new territory voted to remain free their power in Congress would shrink considerably. This is what the Civil War was all about and in my view was not a legitimate rebellion based on the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

  The Declaration:  Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation's, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. My interpretation: The Declaration here is preparing the Colonists case against the King of England. and it is not necessary to write out the long list of complaints here. If you read the whole Declaration of Independence however you will understand the Patriots case against England. Finally the Declaration ends by declaring our independence from Great Britain. The thought process behind this great document is what sets us apart from all other nations. The philosophy is the product of brilliant minds and in my opinion is blessed by God himself. This is what separates America from all other countries of the world and is the root of American exceptionalism. This exceptionalism has enriched and blessed the entire world, drawing people like a magnet the world over. 


"Jar Head"

1st Lieutenant Charles Rumsey Broom
  Leatherneck, Devil Dogs, and Jar head. These are terms or nicknames that have evolved over the years to describe a U.S. Marine. While I was at Verizon today a man saw me in my security uniform and asked me if my company was hiring. As I usually do when someone asks that question I suggested that he fill out an on-line application. He looked about my age and was wearing a t-shirt with the U.S. Marine Corps logo. I smiled and jokingly told him that I am sure that they would probably be glad to hire an old "Jar head" like him. He laughed and rode off on his bicycle. I have used that term for years but it hit me that I didn't know how the term originated. You know me. I hate to remain ignorant of a subject. I am aware of how the term Leatherneck, and Devil Dog originated. The term Leatherneck came about due to a leather collar that American Marines wore from from 1798 until 1872 and was three and a half inches high. It was called "the stock" and served two purposes. To protect the wearers neck from sword wounds in battle but it proved to be impractical because it limited movement of the neck. It was also used to improve military bearing by forcing the wearer to hold his head erect and his chin high while on parade. A Spanish American War Marine named Major General George Elliot said that the collars made Marines look like "Geese looking for rain". The term "Devil Dog" was a result of the World War I battle of Belleau Wood. The Marines fought with such ferocity that the Germans called them "Teufelshunde" or "Hounds from hell". I get the impression that nobody really knows where the name "Jar head" came from but these are the answers I found. The name came from the high and tight haircut that Marines wear. Another answer was that the Mason Jar Company stopped making jars and started making helmets for Marines. All jokes aside, I have nothing but the utmost respect for the Marine Corps. As a student of military history I know that they are always battle ready. That was never more evident than in the Korean War when the Army had grown rusty, fat and lazy after five years of occupation duty in Japan between 1945 and 1950. The North Korean Army manhandled them after it's invasion of South Korea on June 25th 1950 and later when the Chinese invaded Korea in November 1950, catching the 8th Army by surprise. The Marines fared much better because they were combat ready, better disciplined and better led.

Friday, June 13, 2014

Traitors In Our Midst

  When is this nation going to realize that we have a group of traitors, Benedict Arnolds, Quislings, or Copperheads as they were called in the Civil War, in the guise of the Democratic Party? During the Civil War they made up only a portion of the Democratic Party but since the early 1970's they are the Democratic Party. It feels like Deja Vu watching as the Democrats stand by while our enemies take over a country where we left behind so much blood and treasure. There are valid arguments as to whether or not we should have ever fought in Vietnam or Iraq but in both cases good or bad we chose to fight. In Vietnam Nixon gradually fulfilled his promise to end American involvement in that war, which he did on January January 27, 1973. In March 1972, the North Vietnamese launched their Eastertide offensive. There were only 75,000 American troops and two Army combat brigades left in country at that time from a high of 500,000 in 1968. The American Army destroyed the Viet Cong as a fighting force in the 1968 Tet Offensive although the media had characterized it as a defeat. Vo Nguyen Giap had hoped that the South Vietnamese people would rise up and join the Viet Cong but a popular uprising never materialized. In 1972 South Vietnamese ground forces combined with American air support destroyed the North Vietnamese offensive. Nixon assured the skeptical South Vietnamese, during the negotiations to end the war, that America would not allow the North Vietnamese to take over South Vietnam. A provision of the Paris Peace Accords was that America would re-enter the war if North Vietnam violated the treaty. We would provide air support to the South Vietnamese. In 1975, taking advantage of Nixon's removal as a result of the Watergate Scandal, the North Vietnamese launched an all out offensive in violation of the treaty. 

  The Democratic Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act in December 1974 ending any funding for further military assistance of South Vietnam. Between this bill and the effects of the Watergate Scandal the Democrats insured the victory of North Vietnamese forces. The war in Iraq began on March 20, 2003 and American troops were officially withdrawn in December 2011. Although Iraq was controversial and we encountered more resistance than anticipated in the end our efforts had been successful in my view. In spite of Democratic resistance to the war from the get go. I felt at the time that Obama was making a mistake pulling out all American troops from Iraq. We should have kept several bases as staging areas in the event that insurgents were able to gain a foothold like they are at the present. America, I believe, should provide Iraqi forces the air support necessary to defeat these terrorists. In my view we do not have to involve ourselves to the extent we have done in the past any more than we would have in Vietnam We owe that to the 4,804 dead American men and women who lost their lives in the nine years of fighting in Iraq, and the thousands more who were maimed and wounded. Just like we should have avoided defeat in Vietnam for the 58,209 men and women who died there over twenty years of fighting. Why do we fight wars if all we are going to do is stand back and allow the enemy walk in and nullify the efforts our military? What young man or woman in their right mind would ever want to risk their life for a country like ours in the future? What country or ally can ever depend on the United States of America?


Thursday, June 12, 2014

The Biggest Yankee In The Civil War

  Captain David Van Buskirk stood six foot eleven inches and weighed 390 pounds at a time when the average soldier stood five foot eight and a quarter inches. He was born in 1826 in Gosport Indiana. He was a farmer by trade and married three times producing eight children. He fought at Antietam, Chancellorsville and Gettysburg. "Big Dave" was captured several times and would bargain to be put on display for extra rations. He was captured in 1862 and was sent to a Richmond Prison where a Confederate entrepreneur put him on exhibit & they split the proceeds. Even Confederate President Jeff Davis came to see this giant & was astounded when Van Buskirk claimed, straight faced, that back home in Bloomington Indiana, "when I was at the train station with my company, my six sisters came to say goodbye. As I was standing there, with my company, they all came up to me, leaned down and kissed me on top of the head." Buskirk resigned from the army because of health reasons in 1864. He would die in 1886.

Phoebe Pember

Phoebe Pember
  Phoebe Pember was the administrator of Richmond's Chimborazo hospital during the Civil War. In her memoirs she tells about a young patient named Fisher. He was a Confederate soldier who everyone had become very attached to. Fisher had been convalescing from a serious hip wound for the past ten months and everyone was impressed by his cheerfulness and positive attitude. The night following Fisher's first successful walk on his own from one ward to another he screamed out in pain after turning over in bed. Blood began spurting with each heart beat from the wound in his hip. A splintered bone had cut an artery. Phoebe stopped the blood flow by pressing her finger on the artery. She sent for the surgeon who grimly concluded that nothing could be done because the artery was too deeply embedded in the flesh. The following is her personal account of the incident. "When informed of the hopelessness of his plight the young man gave the matron his mother's address and then asked: "How long can I live?" "Only as long as I keep my finger upon this artery". A silence followed. Fisher said, "You can let go---" Phoebe said in her memoirs, "But I could not", Not if my own life had trembled in the balance. Hot tears rushed to my eyes, a surging sound to my ears, and a deathly coldness to my lips" The pang of obeying him was spared me, and for the first and last time during the trials that surrounded me for four years, I fainted away."

The First Surgery In Frontier Nashville

James Robertson
  James Robertson is known as the founder of Nashville but he was also the founder of Nashville medicine because he performed the first surgery. Robertson it seems had settled at Freeland Station after leading his party of men here in December 1779. In an early trip to this area in March 1779 his party of ten men included George and James Freeland, who Freeland Station would be named after. John Donelson, who was bringing the women and children by a flotilla of boats would not arrive here until April 1780. Originally there were eight small stations or forts. Fort Nashboro or the Bluffs as it was called was on the banks of the Cumberland near where the replica of the fort stands today. Freeland station was near where the old Werthan Bag Company stood on 8th Avenue North in North Nashville. The old French Lick or sulpher springs was nearby. On January 11, 1781, John Tucker, Joseph Hendricks, and David Hood left Freeland's Station headed for the bluffs when they were attacked by Indians firing from the canebrakes near the sulphur springs. Tucker and Hendricks were injured but Hood was captured. He was then scalped and left for dead. A party set out from Ft. Nashboro and found Hood near death and they carried him back to the fort. James Robertson had gone to Kentucky looking for powder and lead to use for hunting and defense. He returned to Freeland's Station the day of the attack where he arrived at night. His wife Charlotte, who Charlotte Avenue and Charlotte Tennessee is named after, had given birth to their son Felix a few days earlier. He would grow up to become a famous Nashville doctor. That same night James would help fend off an attack of Chickasaw Indians and the next day would travel to Ft. Nashboro to see David Hood. The night of January 12, by the light of a grease lamp using a shoemaker's awl he operated on Hood using a technique that he learned from a French surgeon traveling on the frontier. Hood fully recovered and led a long life. The Robertsons would eventually have two sons killed by the Indians and Charlotte would watch another son being scalped on the hill, where the capital building of Tennessee is now, from the walls of Ft. Nashboro. Luckily he was not killed and she would nurse him back to health. She would live to the ripe old age of 92 and James would die at 72.
Adead man who has been scalped

A scalping victim

Add caption

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Real Unemployment Numbers And The Failure Of Keynesian Economic Policy

  It really irritates me how the media overemphasizes unemployment figures when Republicans are in power and they deemphasize them when Democrats are in power. Democrats and the media downplayed the accomplishments of Ronald Reagan and how his leadership led us out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. When Reagan took office he inherited a GDP of 3.2%. Two and one half years later it was at 5.1%. One quarter later it grew to 9.3%. Obama inherited a GDP of 4.9% and two and a half years later it was 1.3%. It has steadily declined ever since. Reagan inherited an inflation rate of 11,8% percent. Obama inherited a inflation rate of 0.3%. Two and a half years after Reagan took office it was 2.46%. Two and a half years after Obama took office it was it rose to 3.56%. Reagan inherited an interest rate of 20.5%. Two and one half years later it dropped to 11.0%. I can attest for this because the real estate business was virtually dead because nobody could buy a house. Obama inherited 3.25% and two and a half years later it remained unchanged. Reagan inherited a national debt (adjusted for inflation) of 908 billion dollars Two and a half years later the debt had increased 390 billion more. Obama inherited a debt of 10.1 trillion. Two and one years after Obama took office it increased by 4.4 trillion. Reagan inherited 7.5 % unemployment Two and a half years later it rose to 9.4% but soon fell to 7.6% and steadily declined to 5.3%. Obama inherited an unemployment rate of 7.3%. It rose to 9.2% two and a half years later and is now at 6.7% over five years later. These Obama figures are the official government unemployment rate and not the real unemployment figures which do not reflect those that have quit looking for jobs and those that are under employed. Last but not least Reagan did not go around blaming Carter and griping and complaining about the bad economy like Obama has done. Five years later it is still Bush's fault according to Obama. 

  I am by no means an economic expert but as a layman I have a fair understanding of the difference between the philosophy of Karl Marx, and Adam Smith. Since the advent of John Maynard Keyes book in 1936 "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" the American economy has been heavily influenced by Keynesian economics to our detriment.Without going into a long explanation I will say that Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy, mostly private sector but with government intervention during recessions. Although Keynes book came out during the middle of the Great Depression the government had heavily involved itself already in trying to end the depression. Hoover had begun the process of government involvement but he was blamed for the depression and defeated by Roosevelt. Roosevelt continued Hoovers policies along with his own. This government tampering prolonged the depression in my view, just like Obama's tampering has prolonged the economic malaise that we are in now. If a Republican had the economic numbers that Obama has had the media would be pounding him daily. Obama gets a pass. The following is the unemployment numbers of Roosevelt during the depression.

1929- 3.9%

1930- 8.67%

1931- 15.82%

1932- 23.53

1933- 24.75

1934- 21.60%

1935- 19.97%

1936- 16.80%

1937- 14,18%

1938- 18.91%

1939- 17.05%

1940- 14.45%

1941- 9.66%

  If you notice America only came out of the depression when we began preparing for war and by 1942 we were well on our way to recovery. During the oil shock and stagflation of the 1970's Keynesian economics fell out favor. Reagan's economic plan was successful because it was centered around four things. Tax cuts, spending cuts, government deregulation, and carefully managing the money supply. He was successful on all fronts with the exception of spending cuts. For much of his presidency the Democrats owned both houses of congress and between building our defenses in order to win the Cold War and the Democrats refusing to cut social spending the deficit grew. However the media and the Democrats pounded Reagan on deficit spending all during his presidency and they still refer to that today while ignoring the fact that Obama has spent more money than all of the previous presidents put together. Reagan's policies spurred the longest period of economic growth in American history. George H.W.Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush all benefited from this growth. Now Obama has created this long recession and anemic economy because of re- instituting Keynesian economics. His policies like Obamacare, government regulations and other policies have created vast uncertainty in the marketplace and among industry which plays havoc on an economy. The following are official unemployment figures vs actual unemployment figures since 1949.

Official Actual

1949 5.9% 8.0%

1959 5.5% 7.0%

1969 3.5% 5.5%

1979 5.8% 8.9%

1989 5.3% 10.1%

1999 4.2% 11.0%

2009 9.8% 18.2%

Since 2009 Obama's real unemployment figures have hovered from as high as 18% to a low today of about 14% showing the failure of Keynesian economics and the uncertainty created by Barack Obama.

Sunday, June 8, 2014

The History Of Death In America

  Death is not a pleasant subject for most of us unless you are Dr. Kervorkian. Early in my life I was sheltered from it. Until I was twelve no one had ever died that was close to me. I avoided the subject and I can remember riding by cemeteries or graveyards and I would turn my head in order to avoid looking at them. The first time that I saw a dead body was kind of by accident. My mom took me to the old Cosmopolitan funeral home on West End about where the big Barnes and Noble store is now, across from Centennial Park. It was 1960 and my grandmothers brother, Jake Frogge, had died. Mother knew that I was frightened at the thought of seeing a dead body so she left me in the lobby. I walked by the room that Uncle Jake was in and there he was, lying in his coffin. I was startled and quickly took a seat in the lobby while mother, with her guitar in hand, took a seat by the casket. She sang and played many of the old hymns while I sat and listened. I could listen to her sing all night. My Uncle Buddy, who was my mother's younger brother, was a Methodist preacher up in Eastern Kentucky and to supplement his income he worked part-time as a mortician. We were crazy about him and we would run excitedly to the front door of my grandmothers house whenever he drove down to visit her at Christmastime. The way that we acted you would think that he was Santa Claus himself. We would eagerly sit around the kitchen table listening to his stories about life among the mountain people of Eastern Kentucky. Eventually the subject would turn tho his job as a mortician and he would take pleasure in watching our reactions as he talked about what it was like to embalm someone who had drowned and been in the water for days, or had died from some disease like cancer that had ravaged their bodies. Or the victims of a serious car wreck or some other accident and how he had to make them presentable for burial. He would tell how he and the other morticians would sometime throw up because of the smell or sight of the body when they received them. After the invention of super glue I learned how useful it was to the mortician in repairing damaged flesh. I had a hard time listening to these stories but I found them fascinating.

  Then on January 16, 1963 I lost my parents. I worshiped my mother and the thought of seeing her dead body was more than I thought I could bear. People would tell me "Gregory your mother looks so beautiful, you really need to go to the funeral home". Or "Gregory I am afraid that you will regret it if you don't go". My grandmother was my biggest defender and she would tell them to leave me alone. She would say "If he doesn't want to go don't try to force him". She didn't want to go to the funeral home either. She had found my parents bodies and was still in shock. Mother was her daughter and I can only imagine how I would feel if one of my children died that way. I slept in a little bed over in the corner of my grandparents bedroom and she would sit beside me during those days of the wake and funeral. We would talk for hours late into the night sharing our grief together and finally I would drift off to sleep. This routine went on each night until two days after the funeral I woke up to find my grandmother missing. I was told that sometime after I had fallen asleep she had had a heart attack and was in the hospital. It seemed like death hung over us that whole year of 1963. My Aunt Arda, who was my grandfathers sister and lived with us, passed away in September. President Kennedy was assassinated in November and we sat by the television for four unbelievable days. Then on January 26, 1964 my grandmother died after her fifth heart attack. Again, I could not force myself to go to the funeral home or to the funeral. We got a break over the next four years. Nobody died. Then we found out that my granddaddy had cancer and was dying. A cancer diagnosis in those days was pretty much a death sentence. He died in July 1968 and for the first time in my life I went to the funeral home to visit a dead person and I attended his funeral. I had been married for less than a month so I didn't want to show weakness in front of my new wife. Since then I regularly attend funerals and have been asked to sing at many of them. Funeral homes and hospitals are still not my favorite places to visit but I have come a long way since my younger days. I love to tour old cemeteries and grave yards looking for unique and historic graves. Nashville's Old City Cemetery and Mount Olivet Cemetery are my favorite cemeteries in Nashville. I enjoyed touring the old historic graveyards in Charleston South Carolina when I pulled a Guard summer camp there in 1989. I am supposed to give a tour of Mount Olivet this coming Thursday.

  There have been various traditions surrounding death in America that go all the way back to Colonial days. Until fairly well into the Twentieth Century death touched just about every family on a fairly regular basis. Life expectancy varied. For example a slave's life expectancy was shorter but it was about 40 years old for white Colonials and has slowly risen since then gradually to the point that for women and men it is over 70 years now. Children died like flies from childhood ailments and the death rate was fairly high even into the 1900's. A puritan man named Samuel Sewall wrote, following the death of a daughter, that he spent all of Christmas day in her tomb. He said that" it was an awful but pleasing treat". In the Colonial days funerals were stark but social occasions. Women prepared the corpse. Dressing it in it's Sunday best and slipping it into a shroud of waxed linen and wool soaked in alum. Then later on carpenters began fashioning pine coffins to bury the dead in. After a while they got the idea to cut the top section of the lid off the coffin so visitors could view the remains. 

  By the 1830's mourners wanted something finer and coffin makers began making more elaborate coffins. Some were made out of metal, marble and cast cement. By the 1840's cemeteries became fashionable because graveyards were considered an eyesore. Patents were awarded on specialty model coffins. One was called the "torpedo model" that was designed to explode in the event that grave robbers tampered with the coffin. Getting to the grave required the service of bearers and later hearses. The ones who managed the pall were of course called pallbearers. The pall was a cloth covering over a coffin. The under bearers were the ones who did the real work by carrying the coffin. Somehow over the years the under bearers have come to be called the pallbearers. Early hearses were simple wheeled wagons that might be pulled by men or a horse. Over time they became more elaborate with curtained windows, funerary urns, and tasseled swags as decorations. The more elaborate hearses required two horses and sometimes matching pairs of high steppers. Although funerals could be solemn occasions they were sometimes upbeat affairs. One minister made a funny gaffe by saying that "This is only a shell, the nut is gone" Attendees might be given souvenirs like a ring, scarf, gloves, and a bottle of wine. Rings and gloves were the favorites and ministers collected these things by the hundreds. Then there were dead-cakes that were given to the mourners. A type of cookie with the deceased initials baked in. By the late 1800's professional undertakers took over the business of handling funerals. The old coffins were replaced by caskets with quilted velvet interiors, heavy silver hardware, and rare woods that were supposed to last longer in the "harsh realities of the grave" .

  In 1831 the so-called rural cemetery movement began with the development of the Auburn Cemetery in Boston that was more like a park than a cemetery. One visitor said that "A glance at this beautiful cemetery, almost excites a wish to die". It was built on 72 wooded acres. It was a popular place for lovers, families out for a carriage ride and sightseers to go on a sunny day. Small grave yards and Church grave yards were called bone yards and considered blights on society and hazardous to health. Nashville's City Cemetery was established in 1821 and because this cemetery had no room to expand Mt. Olivet was founded in 1856. This cemetery was much like the Boston Cemetery. At the time it was founded it was a rural area. My Aunt Didi and my mother grew up on Hermitage Avenue just down the street from Mt. Olivet. Didi said that Mt. Olivet was a popular picnic spot and they would go there on Sundays just to walk through the cemetery for recreation.

  There was also a mourning etiquette developed in the 1800's. If a woman lost her husband she didn't leave the house for a month. She might remain in deep mourning for two years. The loss of a parent or child required one year. grandparents, siblings, or anyone who left a inheritance got six months. Aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews got three months. The "widows weeds" or clothing were of course black. After a year she could change to something glossy like silk in shades of dark purple and grey. She wore a black bonnet with a black veil for three months, then trail it down from the back of the bonnet for another nine months. Men showed their grief for a somewhat shorter time than women. They wore black suits. Toward the end of the century the rules eased as far as showing your grief publicly. One of the most bizarre things to come out of the 1800's was the post mortem photograph. Many times people did not have a picture of their loved ones in life and the only picture they might be able to get was in death. This seems to have been a lucrative occupation for them. They would go to great lengths to prop the deceased up with a metal stand or pose their body either alone or with  live loved ones. Some of the deceased were even in various stages of decomposition.

Post mortem photo

It became popular to make mementos out of the deceased persons hair. A lock of hair might be preserved inside a locket. Bracelets were made from plaited hair. Elaborate necklaces, broaches, rings, fob chains, charms and ear rings were made from the hair of the dead. Mourning pictures painted by mostly teenage girls depicted scenes of weeping mourners. In many cases the deceased hair was ground up and used as pigment for the paint. Last but not least I wanted to talk about military traditions regarding death. In the Napoleonic Wars of the late 1700's and early 1800's soldiers bodies were covered with flags and removed from the battlefield on caissons. Two wheeled horse drawn carts to transport ammunition for artillery. The American tradition is to place the blue field of the flag over the soldiers left shoulder on top of the casket. Civil War General Daniel Butterfield wanted a bugle call to replace "Lights Out" that ended every day in camp. He worked out the call with a bugler named Oliver Norton. It probably got it's name "Taps" because it was still recognizable when tapped out on a drum. Taps became popular with the troops and over time was used at military funerals.

  The 21 gun salute derived from British naval custom. Originally it was a 21 gun salute from artillery batteries reserved for honoring presidents, former presidents, and heads of foreign governments. The missing man formation goes back to World War I and started by the Royal Air Force. More than likely the custom arose when British pilots would fly over their home place after a mission so ground crews could see how many planes were missing and the condition of the surviving planes. Americans first used the formation in 1938 Usually four aircraft fly over the funeral site and one plane pulls away, sometimes flying west toward the sunset, to symbolize the loss of a comrade.

Nashville City Cemetery

Nashville's Mount Olivet Cemetery


Thursday, June 5, 2014

Hitlers Mistakes and D-Day

  I am telling my age when I say that I can remember the twentieth anniversary of D-Day. I was 14 when the movie "The Longest Day" was released to commemorate the anniversary. The movie premiered at the old Paramount theater on Church Street in Nashville. I eventually saw the movie at least 3 or 4 times before the movie left the Paramount. I took my brother Mark the first time I went to see it I believe. The first few rows were roped off for all of the D-Day veterans that came to see the movie. On one occasion I overheard a veteran tell another veteran " I wish it had been as easy to take those beaches as it was portrayed in the movie". On the seventieth anniversary of D-Day I wanted to put a different spin on D-Day by talking about the mistakes that Hitler made in World War II leading to one of his biggest mistakes in Normandy. It is amazing to think that if Hitler had died in 1938, even after the agreement at Munich with Neville Chamberlain he might have gone down in history as a great man and statesman. To that point he had completely turned around the German economy. Germany had had unemployment numbers as high as 30% after the beginning of the great depression. By 1938 the unemployment numbers had fallen to about 2%. American unemployment numbers rose to 25% and remained over 20% for most of the 1930's. Germans were working in factories that were re-arming Germany. 

  Hitler had ignored the provisions of the Versailles treaty and was not only re-arming Germany but he was no longer paying reparations to the Allied powers. Germans were also building the autobahn which would ultimately serve a military purpose. Hitler didn't die but went on to cause the most destructive war in world history. Before I get into his mistakes I want to point out the one thing that he did right. After Germany took the Rhineland in 1936, Checkloslavakia and Austria in 1938, he invaded Poland on September 1st 1939. Britain and France had enough and declared war on Germany. After the non-aggression pact between Stalin and Hitler, which secured his eastern front a Phony War ensued between Germany, France and England on the western front. Even though bullets were not flying Hitler was finalizing his war plans. France felt secure behind the famous Maginot Line and Britain secured France's left flank on the southern border of Belgium. Belgium had declared it's neutrality as it had in 1914. There was one huge gap in these defenses however. The Ardennes which was heavily forested and thought to be impenetrable for large forces, especially armor. Against the advice of most German generals Hitler insisted on concentrating the spearhead of his attack in the Ardennes. British and French forces were split in two and taken by surprise in May 1940. Within weeks France would surrender. British and French forces were trapped on the beaches of Dunkirk. This is where Hitler began making a long list of mistakes. Because of his success in the Ardennes though many mistakenly believed that Hitler was a military genius. This would have consequences for Germany later on. 

  At Dunkirk Hitler ordered his forces to stop short of the beaches. He could have easily destroyed the British and French but he considered the British as a race next in line behind the German Aryan as a superior race. He was delusional in believing that if he showed leniency the English would ally themselves with the Germans. He underestimated Churchill however. In one of the greatest military evacuations in history Churchill removed several hundred thousand British and French troops from the beaches of Dunkirk and returned them safely to England. Hitler had built his army and air force but had failed to build a navy that could protect a full scale invasion of England and provide enough landing craft for that invasion. The English Channel became the salvation of England. Another mistake that Hitler made was once he began his air war over England he focused on the wrong targets. At first he was hitting the right targets. He was going after the airfields and British fighters. Churchill predicted that if Hitler had continued this type of air war just two more weeks Britain would have been driven to her knees. However a British attack on Berlin with heavy bombers so infuriated Hitler that he ordered his bombers to bomb British cities instead of military targets. Although thousands of people died it rallied the British to fight even harder and it gave the British Air Force enough breathing room to eventually prevail.

  Frustrated at his failure to defeat Britain he made in my opinion the greatest mistake of the war. He decided to invade the Soviet Union. Like Obama and many other tyrants they always seem to have a blue-print for their conquests. Yes Obama is a tyrant. No I am not comparing him to Hitler. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf which is German for My Struggles. In it he said that the reason Germany had failed in World War I was because it had fought in a two front war. This was a sound observation by Hitler in Mein Kampf. If he had bided his time and left Russia alone he might have won the war. He was too much the megalomaniac for that however. If he had started his attack earlier he might have succeeded but he was diverted into Yugoslavia by an insurgency there. As a result he lost valuable time beginning the attack on June 22, 1941. More evidence of Hitler's mistake was that Stalin was caught totally off guard by Hitler's invasion. He had been content to gather the the spoils of war with Hitler because of the Non-Aggression Pact that allowed Russian forces to take the eastern half of Poland while Hitler took the western half. Stalin was in total shock and immobilized for about two weeks. By the time Stalin came to his senses Hitler had captured whole armies and hundreds of thousands of Russian prisoners. His forces were able to see the buildings of Moscow at one point. 

  Again Hitler diverted forces to the south losing more valuable time. The Russian winter ensued and Hitler was stalled in his tracks. When warm weather returned in late spring the Germans met with success again and drove the Russians back but this time Hitler's goal was the oil fields of the Caucasus. Eventually his forces were bogged down in urban warfare in Stalingrad. Germans fought into the winter in the fiercest battle of the war. Eventually they were cut off and trapped in Stalingrad to freeze and starve until they were forced to surrender over 100,000 men. Stalingrad was the turning point of the war. The Russians would eventually lose about thirty million troops and civilians. For every one German that the combined forces of the Americans, British and French killed the Russians killed seven. After Stalingrad German forces were slowly pushed back with hard and bloody fighting until the eventual fall of Berlin.

  The second biggest mistake that Hitler made was declaring war on the United States four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. By treaty he was not obligated to declare war on the United States. He expected Japan to attack north into Manchuria and Russia which would relieve the pressure on his forces. Then Russia would also be faced with a two front war. Instead the Japanese attacked southward into Indo-China and the southwest pacific. By declaring war on the United States he drew the greatest industrial power in the world into the fight against him. Although Hitler was in a two front war with Russia and England, England was too weak to counterattack and come off of the defensive. The entry of the United States enabled England to go on the offensive. Hitler's declaration of war also gave Roosevelt the political cover he needed to go to war with Germany. Roosevelt viewed Hitler as the greatest threat to the world and British and American strategy became a Europe first strategy.

  On a technological level Hitler did not put enough emphasis on at least three things. The atomic bomb, the jet fighter and the V-2 rocket. The reason Albert Einstein wrote his famous letter to Roosevelt warning him of the German atomic bomb program was because many well known European scientists were fearful that Hitler would have the bomb first. He probably could have but he didn't see the full potential of having a weapon of that magnitude. So he failed to push the project in the serious way that Roosevelt did. The V-2 rocket had the potential of delivering an atomic weapon and at the very least it would have been a devastating weapon against the Allies if it had been pushed earlier in the war. Third the jet fighter could have defeated our Air Forces if produced earlier and in greater numbers.

  Last but not least we come to D-Day. The Germans could not have had a better general in charge of repelling the Allied invasion than Erwin Rommel. Rommel was successful to a great degree because he had studied the tactics of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest among others. He was called the Desert Fox and was deeply respected by Allied generals who had faced him in North Africa. Since the early part of the war the Germans had been building the Atlantic Wall defenses along the western coasts of the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. These defenses were mostly in the form of pillboxes and other concrete fortifications. While I was in Belgium I saw several of these pillboxes. Rommel improved these defenses by stringing barbed wire and placing iron obstacles in and under the water along miles and miles of beaches. Rommel's plan was to stop the Allied invasion at the beaches. If he could make the invasion too costly he might be able to delay a second front on the European continent indefinitely. He planned to do this by placing Panzer Units in reserve to the rear of the beach defenses where they could respond quickly to the point that was being threatened the most. Panzer is the German name for armored units. 

  Most German generals believed that the Pas de Calais would be where the Allied invasion would land because it was the shortest point between England and France. The Germans believed this because of the fact that a fictitious army was thought to be in that area commanded by George S. Patton. In addition the allied spy network had successfully fooled the Germans in to believing that the Pas de Calais would be the point of attack. The fatal flaw in Rommel's defensive plan was that he did not have control over the Panzers. Hitler had final say over when and where that they would be used. When the attack came on June 6, 1944 in Normandy Hitler held back the Panzers until it was too late. Rommel begged to have them released but Hitler continued to believe that Normandy was a diversion in order to draw the Germans attention away from the real point of attack. The Pas de Calais. By the grace of God and the stupidity of Hitler as bad as the invasion had been for allied forces it could have been an absolute disaster for them if Rommel had gotten his way. Rommel would be implicated in the plot to kill Hitler the following month and would be forced to commit suicide.
Erwin Rommel

American troops hitting Omaha Beach

American troops storming Omaha Beach in a Higgin's Boat

Eisenhower visiting the 101st Airborne Troops just before take-off
A German Tank

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

The History of Political Correctness

  For many years I thought that my generation had the greatest negative impact on this country along with the administration of Lyndon Johnson. Johnson's policies were the catalyst that gave birth to the radical politics of the left that is now running rampant in the form of the modern day Democratic Party. Political correctness is a tool of the left and a big part our culture today. If people understood its history and how dangerous and insidious that it is they would not be so tolerant of it. Political correctness has been around for a while and goes back to World War I. Karl Marx believed that capitalism would fall of it's own weight and was willing to give it time to implode from within. The disparities between rich and poor or the bourgeoisie and proletariat would become greater and greater until the proletariat would rise up in rebellion to replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class. As time went on however the proletariat continued to reject Marxism. 

  When World War I began many Marxists believed that the war would be the thing that would unite the working class. The proletariat in Germany for example had more in common with the proletariat in France and England than they had with the ruling classes in their own countries. They believed that the proletariat would refuse to fight. When the proletariat marched off to fight for their individual countries in a great surge of patriotism the Marxists were thoroughly disappointed. They blamed Western culture. The Marxists established "think tanks". Sounds familiar? These think tanks determined that the only way that economic Marxism could succeed was if western culture was destroyed. So they created cultural Marxism. This is the purpose of political correctness. The United States is being fundamentally changed and a big part of that change is the destruction of our value system. Our education system on both the secondary and higher educational level has been taken over by these people. They realize if they can indoctrinate our youth that will go a long way toward destroying western culture. 

  Multiculturalism and identity politics are dividing the people into warring classes. We are seeing the deconstruction of western society. Most people are logical and political correctness is not logical. What political correctness does is attempt to end logical and reasonable debate. If you are against gay marriage for perfectly legitimate religious reasons and legal reasons the left will not entertain debate. You are just anti-gay or a homophobe in their mind. If you are a woman and believe that government tax money should not be used to buy contraceptives and pay for abortions then you are part of a war on women and anti-woman. In order to receive the protection of the feminists you must be a member of the political left. Otherwise you do not legitimately exist as a woman. If you are against quota's in hiring. Where whites are by-passed even though they are more qualified for a job in order to fill a quota then you are a racist. If you are black and feel this way then you are not really black. You are a sell-out and Uncle Tom. If you have a legitimate concern about the influx of radical Islam and Sharia law into America then you are an Islamophobe. Finally if you are against illegal immigration because of the negative effect on our culture. The overburdening of our criminal justice system, our educational system. welfare and entitlement system, balooning our deficit, and the fact that it  puts Americans out of work. It doesn't matter, you are a nativist and a racist. 

  The thing that I have noticed about political correctness is that what is politically correct today will be politically incorrect tomorrow. When I was a kid the politically correct term for black person was colored. This is why the N.A.A.C.P. is called the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Later the word Negro became the politically correct term. By the time I was married in 1968 the accepted term was black. I didn't have a problem with that because I was white and they were black. Made perfect sense to me. For a short while it became Afro-American and finally African-American. In my view this is where I had to draw the line.. I refuse to use the term African-American. It is not even a proper term. A real African-American would be an African who migrates to this country and is naturalized as an American. Furthermore that person could be white or black and be a an African-American. Black people who are born in this country are not African-Americans but Americans of African descent. Just like I am an American of European descent. That is too much of a mouthful and I refuse to say it. So I will just continue using the term black people. Political correctness is like telling a joke. You don't know where the joke originated but you empower the joke by re-telling it. Each person will tell the next person and the cycle continues. We should analyze each term we hear and only give that word power if it is logical to do so. As a society we must realize that political correctness is the machine that the left is using to dismantle our culture in order to bring about the ultimate triumph of Marxism.    

The Execution of Mata Hari

Mata Hari

  Mata Hari was the stage name of Margaretha Zelle, a famous exotic dancer who was executed in 1917 as a German spy in World War I. She was born in the Netherlands in 1876. When she was 18 she married a Dutch army officer who was 21 years older. They had two children together, a boy and girl and she followed her husband to Java in 1897. While in Java the son mysteriously died. In 1902 Mata Hari, along with her husband and daughter returned to the Netherlands where the husband obtained a divorce and retained custody of the daughter. She traveled to Paris where she became an exotic dancer and drew audiences in the thousands traveling to Berlin, Vienna, Madrid and other European capitals. She became the lover of many high placed European aristocrats and dignitaries who rewarded her handsomely, in other words she became a high class call girl. When World War I broke out she aroused the suspicions of the French secret police for her liaisons with German officials. She was placed under surveillance. Mata Hari was recruited by the French to spy on the Germans in Spain but it was soon\ determined that she was a double agent and arrested. At her trial evidence was presented that she was unable to explain and she was sentenced to death.The following evidence was disclosed in the 1970's. Supposedly her spying resulted in the deaths of at least 50,000 allied soldiers. In December 1916, the French Second Bureau of the French War Ministry let Mata Hari obtain the names of six Belgian agents. Five were suspected of submitting fake material and working for the Germans, while the sixth was suspected to be a double agent for Germany and France. Two weeks after Mata Hari had left Paris for a trip to Madrid, the double agent was executed by the Germans, while the five others continued their operations. This development served as proof to the Second Bureau that the names of the six spies had been communicated by Mata Hari to the Germans.She was executed very early on the morning of October 15, 1917. 
  The following is an eyewitness account of a British reporter. Never once had the iron will of the beautiful woman failed her. Father Arbaux, accompanied by two sisters of charity, Captain Bouchardon, and Maitre Clunet, her lawyer, entered her cell, where she was still sleeping - a calm, untroubled sleep, it was remarked by the turnkeys and trusties. The sisters gently shook her. She arose and was told that her hour had come. May I write two letters?' was all she asked. Consent was given immediately by Captain Bouchardon, and pen, ink, paper, and envelopes were given to her. She seated herself at the edge of the bed and wrote the letters with feverish haste. She handed them over to the custody of her lawyer. Then she drew on her stockings, black, silken, filmy things, grotesque in the circumstances. She placed her high-heeled slippers on her feet and tied the silken ribbons over her insteps. She arose and took the long black velvet cloak, edged around the bottom with fur and with a huge square fur collar hanging down the back, from a hook over the head of her bed. She placed this cloak over the heavy silk kimono which she had been wearing over her nightdress. Her wealth of black hair was still coiled about her head in braids. She put on a large, flapping black felt hat with a black silk ribbon and bow. Slowly and indifferently, it seemed, she pulled on a pair of black kid gloves. Then she said calmly: 'I am ready.' The party slowly filed out of her cell to the waiting automobile. The car sped through the heart of the sleeping city. It was scarcely half-past five in the morning and the sun was not yet fully up. Clear across Paris the car whirled to the Caserne de Vincennes, the barracks of the old fort which the Germans stormed in 1870. The troops were already drawn up for the execution. The twelve Zouaves, forming the firing squad, stood in line, their rifles at ease. A sub officer stood behind them, sword drawn. The automobile stopped, and the party descended, Mata Hari last. The party walked straight to the spot, where a little hummock of earth reared itself seven or eight feet high and afforded a background for such bullets as might miss the human target. As Father Arbaux spoke with the condemned woman, a French officer approached, carrying a white cloth. 'The blindfold,' he whispered to the nuns who stood there and handed it to them. 'Must I wear that?' asked Mata Hari, turning to her lawyer, as her eyes glimpsed the blindfold. Maitre Clunet turned interrogatively to the French officer" 

  If Madame prefers not, it makes no difference,' replied the officer, hurriedly turning away. . Mata Hari was not bound and she was not blindfolded. She stood gazing steadfastly at her executioners, when the priest, the nuns, and her lawyer stepped away from her. The officer in command of the firing squad, who had been watching his men like a hawk that none might examine his rifle and try to find out whether he was destined to fire the blank cartridge which was in the breech of one rifle, seemed relieved that the business would soon be over. A sharp, crackling command and the file of twelve men assumed rigid positions at attention. Another command, and their rifles were at their shoulders; each man gazed down his barrel at the breast of the women which was the target. She did not move a muscle. The under officer in charge had moved to a position where from the corners of their eyes they could see him. His sword was extended in the air. It dropped. The sun - by this time up - flashed on the burnished blade as it described an arc in falling. Simultaneously the sound of the volley rang out. Flame and a tiny puff of greyish smoke issued from the muzzle of each rifle. Automatically the men dropped their arms. At the report Mata Hari fell. She did not die as actors and moving picture stars would have us believe that people die when they are shot. She did not throw up her hands nor did she plunge straight forward or straight back. Instead she seemed to collapse. Slowly, inertly, she settled to her knees, her head up always, and without the slightest change of expression on her face. For the fraction of a second it seemed she tottered there, on her knees, gazing directly at those who had taken her life. Then she fell backward, bending at the waist, with her legs doubled up beneath her. She lay prone, motionless, with her face turned towards the sky. A non-commissioned officer, who accompanied a lieutenant, drew his revolver from the big, black holster strapped about his waist. Bending over, he placed the muzzle of the revolver almost - but not quite - against the left temple of the spy. He pulled the trigger, and the bullet tore into the brain of the woman. Mata Hari was surely dead." Mata Hari's body was not claimed by any family members and was accordingly used for medical study. Her head was embalmed and kept in the Museum of Anatomy in Paris, but in 2000, archivists discovered that the head had disappeared, possibly as early as 1954, when the museum had been relocated. Records dated from 1918 show that the museum also received the rest of the body, but none of the remains could later be accounted for.

Mata Hari at the time of her arrest

The execution

The head of Mata Hari