Posts

Now President Who FREED SLAVES Torched by Vandals

In the midst of anti-Confederacy monument hysteria sweeping the nation, not even America’s beloved 16th president – who issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 that freed the slaves – is safe from mayhem and destruction.

Chicago Alderman Ray Lopez says vandals torched a bust of Abraham Lincoln that stood in West Englewood for nearly 100 years.

And Lopez places blame for the destruction squarely at the feet of President Trump.

He claims the president emboldened vandals in the “Land of Lincoln” when Trump blamed “both sides” for violence at a Charlottesville, Virginia, rally, which left one woman dead and 38 injured . . .

President Trump unequivocally and repeatedly condemned the “violence, bigotry and hatred” and called for national unity. But it still wasn’t enough for the mainstream media and leftist detractors. Despite the mishmash of extremist groups on the scene, the left and mainstream media demanded that Trump condemn the hateful actions specifically of the white supremacists and neo-Nazis. But nary a peep was said of Antifa’s role in the violence. On Monday, President Trump specifically condemned white supremacists. On Tuesday, Trump said: “I think there’s blame on both sides. You had a group on one side that was bad. You had a group on the other side that was also very violent. Nobody wants to say that. I’ll say it right now.” (Read more from “Now President Who FREED SLAVES Torched by Vandals” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Likens Himself to Abraham Lincoln…

Photo credit: Breitbart Appearing on ESPN Radio’s The Herd with Colin Cowherd, President Obama explained that his pop cultural tour to push Obamacare – a tour that has spanned from The Ellen Degeneres Show to the Funny or Die! sketch Between Two Ferns – was actually Lincolnesque. He stated:

First of all, if you read back on Lincoln, he loved telling the occasional bawdy joke, and he went out among regular folks. One of the hardest things about being President is being in a bubble that is artificial. Unless you make a conscious effort, you start to sound like some Washington stiff. So you got to consciously try to get out of that, if you want to remind yourself of the wonderful people you are supposed to be serving with a sense of humor and aren’t thinking every day of position papers.

Obama’s words were actually a rip-off of a defense used by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes shortly after Obama’s appearance on Between Two Ferns. Undoubtedly, the MSNBC-watching president parroted the Hayes line.

Read more from this story HERE.

WSJ: What Would Lincoln Do?

Photo Credit: Richard Strauss/SmithsonianAbraham Lincoln, whose birthday we mark this holiday weekend, had less leadership experience than almost any earlier president. George Washington and Andrew Jackson had been generals, several other presidents had been governors, and all the Southerners had owned plantations. They had run organizations and managed men. President Lincoln, by contrast, was a former state legislator, a one-term congressman and the senior partner of a two-man law firm; he kept his most important papers filed away in his hat.

And yet Lincoln filled the office of president so effectively that he regularly tops historians’ rankings of great presidents.

It helped, of course, that he was one of the greatest writers in the American canon—certainly the greatest ever to reach the White House (Jefferson at his best could be equally good, but his range was narrower). Leaving aside such extraordinary talents, which of Lincoln’s principles of action can guide his successors?

Cite precedent. Lincoln the lawyer was ever mindful of precedents, while Lincoln the unhappy son who never bonded with his hard-driving, un-bookish father was always looking for paternal surrogates. He found both precedents and men he could look up to in America’s founding fathers.

Lincoln’s mature career—from the repeal of the Missouri Compromise in 1854 until his death in 1865—was, among other things, a long effort to show that his positions on the issue of slavery were those of the founders. (Lincoln wanted slavery contained and ultimately extinguished; so, he said, did they.) He hammered away at this theme in his Peoria speech in 1854, the three-hour-long oration that first laid out his ideas; he returned to it repeatedly in his 1858 debates with the Illinois Democrat Stephen Douglas ; and he spent half the Cooper Union Address, his New York City command performance in 1860, showing that “our fathers, who framed the government under which we live,” agreed with him. “As those fathers marked [slavery], let it be again marked,” he said, “as an evil not to be extended.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Common Core Requirement: Teach Students About Gettysburg Address Without Mentioning the Civil War (+video)

Photo Credit: Fox News Is it possible to teach students the meaning behind President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address without mentioning the Civil War?

According to the government’s new Common Core education standards, the Gettysburg Address must be taught without mentioning the Civil War and explaining why President Lincoln was in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.

Read more from this story HERE.

One-Hundred and Fifty Years Later Paper Retracts Editorial Dismissing Lincoln’s “Silly Remarks” at Gettysburg

Photo Credit: Matt ZenceySeven score and ten years ago, the forefathers of this media institution brought forth to its audience a judgment so flawed, so tainted by hubris, so lacking in the perspective history would bring, that it cannot remain unaddressed in our archives.

We write today in reconsideration of “The Gettysburg Address,” delivered by then-President Abraham Lincoln in the midst of the greatest conflict seen on American soil. Our predecessors, perhaps under the influence of partisanship, or of strong drink, as was common in the profession at the time, called President Lincoln’s words “silly remarks,” deserving “a veil of oblivion,” apparently believing it an indifferent and altogether ordinary message, unremarkable in eloquence and uninspiring in its brevity.

In the fullness of time, we have come to a different conclusion. No mere utterance, then or now, could do justice to the soaring heights of language Mr. Lincoln reached that day…

Read more from this story HERE.

College Plaque in Land of Lincoln Labels Abe a ‘Democrat’

Photo Credit: Fox News Abraham Lincoln, a Democrat?

So says a plaque at a public university in Lincoln’s home state of Illinois, where, since 1905, students at Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago have seen the nation’s 16th president – and quite possibly its most influential – honored as a democrat.

“This building is dedicated to public service honoring the memory of Abraham Lincoln,” the inscription reads. “Democrat.”

Lincoln, the son of Kentucky frontiersman who began his political career as a Whig Party leader, won the White House in 1860 as a Republican and was later re-elected in 1864 before being assassinated on April 14, 1865. A synopsis of his political career at WhiteHouse.gov notes that Lincoln “built the Republican Party into a strong national organization” as president.

“It’s very deceiving, especially in the political climate we’re in.” – Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA

Read more from this story HERE.

Conservatives Must Embrace Principles of Reagan, Lincoln to Succeed

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

In a recent Salon article, “The conservative crackup: How the Republican Party lost its mind,” Kim Messick claims the Republican Party has lurched to the right, bipartisanship has been lost, and that “our government isn’t designed to function in these conditions.”

Messick then compared the Tea Party-infused GOP to tyrannical regimes, writing, “The Republican Party, particularly in the House, has turned into the legislative equivalent of North Korea — a political outlier so extreme it has lost the ability to achieve its objectives through normal political means.”

Though Messick at least gives conservatives some credit for the Republican Party’s long-term success, he wrote of the modern GOP, “Because of its demographic weakness, it is more beholden than ever to the intensity of its most extreme voters. This has engendered a death spiral in which it must take increasingly radical positions to drive these voters to the polls…”

In a Washington Post op-ed, “How to save the Republican Party, courtesy of two Democrats,” William A. Galston and Elaine C. Kamarck lament the party’s woes and argue that the Republican Party should essentially abandon conservatism and conservative activists for its own good…

This has been a consistent liberal attack since the days of Ronald Reagan: Republicans are extremists and crazy not to work in a “bipartisan” manner to support more liberal programs and that being more conservative will lead to the party’s implosion. The left cries crocodile tears, lamenting the destruction of the GOP because it is just too conservative.

Read more from this story HERE.

Copperhead Movie a Unique Take on the Civil War

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

Wednesday, June 25, 2013 – Orthodox mythology of the Civil War holds that the Northern states rallied in unity behind the messianic President Lincoln on a noble mission to liberate the slaves and preserve the Union. Its terrible cost in American lives – unmatched by any other conflict before or since – is taken as a measure of that nobility, and anyone who challenges that view can only be an idiot, or worse, a closet racist. The truth, as usual, is a little more complicated.

Copperhead, a movie set to open this coming Friday, June 28, grapples with one of these complicated truths: Northern opposition to the war. This is a truly unique Civil War movie. There are no battle scenes; no exploration of different campaigns and the military logic that informed them. Rather, this movie explores the politically uncomfortable realities – the divergence of interests and opinions, of rhetoric versus reality, and the social upheavals – that accompany major conflict. It may not change your view on the Civil War, but certainly challenges orthodox thinking, and deepens our understanding of an aspect that is rarely mentioned.

Copperheads were the derogatory name given by Republicans to “Peace Democrats,” a wing of the Democratic Party that opposed the Civil War. While Republicans were referring to the poisonous snake of that name, Copperheads responded by defiantly wearing lady liberty lapel buttons cut from copperhead pennies. They wielded a fair amount of influence, especially in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, but their protest was felt throughout the North. Most Copperheads believed the war was unconstitutional and destructive, and that Lincoln was abusing his power. Some low-income laborers, for example in the coal fields of Pennsylvania, also saw liberation of the slaves as a threat to their jobs. Prominent leaders included Ohio Representative Clement Vallandigham.

The Copperheads’ polar opposites were the “Radical Republicans,” represented by such figures as Ohio Senator Benjamin Wade, Horace Greeley, Frederick Douglass, Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens, who believed that Lincoln was not working hard or fast enough to emancipate the slaves. Their sentiments at the time were perhaps best captured by General Order Number 38, written by Union General Ambrose Burnside, making it illegal to criticize the war effort. The Order was used as pretext to arrest Clement Vallandigham for treason. Embarrassed by this excess, Lincoln commuted the sentence, but banished Vallandigham to the Confederacy.

The movie centers on two upstate New York families and the town’s reactions to their unyielding positions as the war’s effects hit home. The Copperheads are represented by patriarch Abner Beech (Billy Campbell), his wife M’rye (Genevieve Steele) son, Jeff (Casey Brown), and the orphan they have taken in, Jimmy (Josh Cruddash). The Beech’s run a dairy farm.

The Radical Republicans are represented by the family of Jee Hagadorn (Angus Macfayden of Braveheart fame), his daughter Esther (Lucy Boynton), and son Ni (Augustus Prew). Jee runs a saw mill and manufactures wooden barrels. Avery, an elderly Republican who attempts to keep peace among the various town factions, is played ably by Peter Fonda. One criticism of the film is that it is slow in developing the characters, thus it takes a while to figure out how each one fits into the story.

The period covered in the film, 1862, saw Democrat Horatio Seymour elected governor of New York State, along with a number of other Democrats. A Democrat was elected governor of New Jersey and Copperheads also won majorities in the Illinois and Indiana legislatures that year. Abner Beech provokes the town following the election by holding a celebratory bonfire, which the town’s Republicans see as an open act of defiance.

The antagonists opposing sentiments are well captured when Abner comments aloud to his family on a local newspaper story following the election: “Benjamin Wade, a Republican of Ohio, says anyone who quotes the Constitution in the current crisis is a traitor. A traitor! Can you imagine? But listen how a Democrat paper in Ohio gave it right back to him: ‘Such an abolitionist should be hung until the flesh rots off his bones and the winds of Heaven whistle Yankee Doodle through his loathsome skeleton.’”

Echoing Romeo and Juliet, Jeff Beech becomes enamored of Esther Hagadorn. Esther only courts him, however, after he agrees to use his middle name, “Tom.” She finds “Jeff” unacceptable, because it reminds her of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, even though he explains that he was named after Thomas Jefferson. He agrees anyway and becomes “Tom” to her family and his friends. Abner’s response to the influence Esther and her father is having on his son’s political views is classic Dad: “The way to a woman’s heart, boy, ain’t by rejecting one’s own kin and parroting the asinine opinions of her father.” Nonetheless, Jeff defies his father, joins the Union Army and goes off to war.

Jee Hagadorn, meanwhile, seeks to dissuade Esther from her interest in Tom with a torrid quote from Mark: “Brother will betray brother unto death, and the father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death…” He adds “I am a blind pilgrim on this earth, but even I can see when a boy sparks a girl.” To which Esther responds “Dear father, sparks don’t always lead to a fire.” He then flatly states, “If you marry him, well, he will kill me.”

Jee Hagadorn’s son, Ni – short for “Benaiah” one of David’s Old Testament generals – tolerates his father’s rigid dogmatism with sarcasm and defiance. Ni relates to Jimmy how every day his father lambasts him for not living up to his name. “I should’ve named you Pete, or Steve, or William Henry!” Jee wails. “I get this every day,” Ni tells Jimmy, but adds, “I said ‘Now listen here, patriarchs in glass houses mustn’t heave stones. You’re named after Jehoaddan, that’s in the Bible. He made a covenant with God. I ain’t never seen you make no covenant. All you do is make barrels.’” Jimmy asks “What did he say?” Ni smiles, “I left before he could say anything.”

The movie’s plot thickens as news of town casualties come back from the front, and the Radical Republicans, led by Jee Hagadorn, become increasingly hostile to Beech and the other Copperheads. Beech finds almost no buyers for his dairy products, and is scorned by the local preacher at the Sunday service. It is easy to imagine such drama playing out in a small town, where residents interact on a daily basis. I won’t spoil the dramatic ending for you.

The film has an unmistakable air of authenticity. It was shot entirely on location at Nova Scotia’s King’s Landing, a “living museum” reconstructed to mimic a 19th century North American town. The book on which the film was based, Copperheads, was written in 1893 by Harold Frederic, an author who lived through the period in question. His novel therefore captured the mannerisms and speech of the day.

Copperhead was directed by Ron Maxwell, who also directed two other well-known Civil War classics, Gettysburg and Gods and Generals. The screenplay was written by Bill Kaufman, a novelist whose contrarian political leanings appear well-fitted for this contrarian plot. Kauffman has been described as a pacifist, an anarchist, an anti-war conservative, even paleoconservative; he is most decidedly anti-war and this is a prevailing theme in Copperhead.

This is perhaps best captured in an exchange between Jimmy and Abner. Jimmy asks, “Mr. Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal. Those slaves are men, aren’t they?”

Abner responds, “They are, they surely are. But their cure is worse than the disease. War ain’t a cure for this. Slavery ain’t right… but killing people, destroying whole cities and towns and turning the government in Washington into God’s almighty army isn’t right either. Why make things worse… only make for a lot of dead boys.”

One is tempted to draw a comparison between Copperheadism and the anti-war sentiments of sixties radicals. The Copperheads were boisterous activists and a few did have sympathies for the Southern cause. However similarities cease there. Copperheads really were opposed to the war, both because they saw the death and destruction as unnecessary, and because they believed it to be unconstitutional. Most also remained loyal to the Union.

Leftist leaders of the anti-war movement, on the other hand, aren’t really anti-war, but anti-US. This is best exemplified by Obama’s friend Bill Ayers, who wrote in his manifesto Prairie Fire, “We are communist women and men… Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside… Without mass struggle there can be no revolution. Without armed struggle there can be no victory.” Peace Democrats, for sure.

Conservatives will appreciate the other major theme of the movie, the U.S. Constitution. Many Copperheads firmly believed the war was unconstitutional and that Lincoln was abusing his power. What is left completely out of the movie, however, is the fact that some were also racist, and opposed the war on that basis. So while one can appreciate their devotion to the Constitution, and enjoy the movie because of it, their image remains tarnished by that reality.

Kauffman deliberately remained faithful to the book’s rich dialog. As Maxwell explained, “That line where an ear of burnt corn is described as ‘tougher than Pharaoh’s heart’ is so good you’d be crazy to cut it. The book was filled with them, illuminating a time and a place and a mind-set that’s been positively informed by the memorizing of scripture.”

This loyalty to the day’s dialog is refreshing in its honesty and wholesomeness. There is only one curse word to be found, and that uttered by the town bad boy, from which such might be expected – but even that seems out of place. I kept contrasting this in my mind with the idiotic Hansel and Gretel, Witch Hunters, which I had to sit through recently. The film pretended to be set in some fantasy medieval period, but was so rife with “F” and “S” bombs you couldn’t even enjoy the sophomoric humor, much less believe the setting. As Hollywood would doubtless be surprised to learn, Copperheads is enriched by both its authenticity and the absence of such base gimmicks. This historical honesty also evidences the nation’s then devout Christianity, another welcome departure from typical Hollywood fare.

As Paul Buhle & Dave Wagner write in a Swan’s Commentary review: “This is a movie with a script that is for a change equal to the complicated politics of the dangerous moment it explores, when the outcome of the Civil War was far from certain.”

This is a movie well worth seeing; both for its accurate depiction of the times, its rich narrative, and the unique, rarely discussed subject matter, which was in fact a major component of the days’ controversies. It is also completely family friendly – a rarity in Hollywood these days.

HERE is a theater listing.

HERE is the trailer.

_______________________________________________________________________

James Simpson is an investigative journalist, businessman and former economist and budget examiner for the White House Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Simpson’s work is published at AIM.org, American Thinker, Breitbart, Capital Research Center, Washington Times, WorldNet Daily and elsewhere. He is also featured in Curtis Bowers’ award winning documentary Agenda: Grinding America Down.

Navy: USS Abraham Lincoln Refueling Delayed, Will Hurt Carrier Readiness

Photo Credit: USNIThe U.S. Navy will delay the refueling of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) for an unknown period because of the uncertain fiscal environment due to the ongoing legislative struggle, the service told Congress in a Friday message obtained by USNI News.

Lincoln was scheduled to be moved to Huntington Ingalls Industries’ (HII) Newport News Shipyard later this month to begin the 4-year refueling and complex overhaul (RCOH) of the ship.

“This delay is due to uncertainty in the Fiscal Year 2013 appropriations bill, both in the timing and funding level available for the first full year of the contract,” the message said.
“CVN-72 will remain at Norfolk Naval Base where the ships force personnel will continue to conduct routine maintenance until sufficient funding is received for the initial execution of the RCOH.”

Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) chairman of the House Armed Services Seapower subcommittee released a statement denouncing the need for decision.

Forbes called the delay, “another example of how these reckless and irresponsible defense cuts in Washington will have a long-term impact on the Navy’s ability to perform its missions. Not only will the Lincoln be delayed in returning to the Fleet, but this decision will also affect the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) defueling, the USS George Washington (CVN-73) RCOH, and future carrier readiness.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Restoring the American Spirit in 2013

Ronald Reagan, who is credited with restoring the American spirit during the 1980s–as well as reestablishing our economic and military might as second to none–warned that the United States place as a “shining city on a hill” would be lost, unless active steps were taken to pass on the vision. President Reagan said in his Farewell Address, “If we forget what we did, we won’t know who we are. I’m warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit.”

Evidence that Reagan’s warning is coming to pass can be seen in Washington today. The willingness of President Obama and many members of Congress to divide Americans for political gain over taxes, while in no way even beginning to address the country’s true fiscal cliff of pending national bankruptcy indicates we have forgotten the lessons of the 1980s and other times of national renewal. The good news is that we have been here before.

The first era when the United States faced a crisis in spirit came only eleven years after the country declared its independence. In fact, many prominent political leaders, including George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison, wondered if the fledgling nation was going to survive due to the inherent weaknesses found in the Articles of Confederation. In May 1787, delegates from the states gathered in Philadelphia at Independence Hall, where the Declaration had been signed, to take on the great challenge of creating a new form of government. However, after five weeks of deliberations little progress had been made.

In the midst of another discouraging day, Franklin signaled the Constitutional Convention’s President, Washington, that he wished to address the body. He first marveled at how being so far into the proceedings, and “groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us” producing as many “noes as ayes” on any given question, how it had not occurred to any of them to humbly ask “the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings.” Dr. Franklin, the oldest member of the Convention at eighty-one, reminded the delegates that during the Revolutionary War, when he and his fellow members of the Continental Congress were “sensible of the danger,” they prayed daily, and their prayers were answered. “All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor.”

Franklin continued, “And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men…We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it’ [Psalm 127:1]. I firmly believe this; and I also believe without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and by word down to future ages.”

The delegates heeded Franklin’s words, in part, a few days later when the convention recessed to commemorate the Fourth of July. Together they attended a church service, prayed, heard a patriotic oration and participated in other events celebrating the momentous day. When they reconvened on July 5th, the political climate in the room had changed, and the delegates were able come together and create the longest standing form of government in the world today.

Leaders have made calls to renew our national spirit not just by having faith in God, but also faith in our founding beliefs. Abraham Lincoln poignantly said during his remarks at the dedication of military cemetery at Gettysburg in November 1863 (when the future of the nation once again stood in the balance), “Four score and seven years ago [referring back to the year 1776 and the Declaration of Independence], our Fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.”

Lincoln concluded his short address exhorting, “that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, that government of by and for the people shall not perish from the earth.” The United States of course survived and secured the God-given right to liberty to all as promised in the Declaration of Independence and went on to become the predominant power in the world in the century to come.

At the dawn of the 1960s, John Kennedy called for a renewal of the American frontier spirit. He said in accepting his party’s nomination for the Presidency, “…I believe the times demand new invention, innovation, imagination, decision. I am asking each of you to be pioneers on that New Frontier.” Then quoting God’s reassuring words to Joshua and the children of Israel as they made ready to enter the Promised Land with its unknown enemies and difficulties, JFK added, “My call is to the young in heart, regardless of age–to all who respond to the Scriptural call: ‘Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed.’ [Joshua 1:9]. For courage–not complacency–is our need today–leadership–not salesmanship…For the harsh facts of the matter are that we stand on this frontier at a turning-point in history. We must prove all over again whether this nation–or any nation so conceived–can long endure…” The United States made incredible strides in civil rights during the 1960s and led the world in innovation, including the greatest triumph of all: putting a man on the moon.

Americans will once again need that same frontier spirit, if we are to change direction and get off the road that leads to Greece. We will have to face the fact that entitlement programs begun fifty and even eighty years ago, now accounting for over half of all federal spending, must be reformed in order for the country to remain solvent. As in times past, our spirit and nation can be renewed, but it will require the same ingredients that have led to renewal in the past: both faith in God and the wisdom He can provide and faith in our Founding ideals of limited constitutional government. Then we will have the frontier spirit required to look to the future and smile.

In September of 1787, as the Constitutional Convention delegates rose to sign the document that would change not only America, but the world, Benjamin Franklin remarked to some nearby that he would often look at the chair in which George Washington was sitting during the course of the deliberations, with its depiction of the sun on the horizon, and wonder “…whether it was rising or setting. But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting sun.” May 2013 mark the beginning of another season where the sun is rising once again over our land.

__________________________________________

Randall DeSoto is the author of WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS which addresses how leaders, throughout United States history, have appealed to the beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence.