Eric Holder Resuscitating the Sedition Act of 1798

Once upon a time, the party now calling itself "Democratic" placed itself at the forefront of defense of constitutionally protected speech.  Now its leaders move openly against 1st Amendment freedoms such as the press and political speech.

In the 1790s, freewheeling partisan publications launched hyperbolic, bitter, and occasionally hilarious tirades against political figures.  It created a political climate less civil than today, but more so than the English custom of pelting unworthy candidates for office with rotten food.  Federalists, who controlled all three branches of government, concluded that enough was enough and passed the Sedition Act.

This legislation, alongside more serious and defensible measures, made it a misdemeanor to bring any part of the government "into contempt or disrepute."

This included, of course, President John Adams.

Along with the less threatening Alien Act, Democratic-Republicans finally found their winning issue.  Under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, they chased forever from power the party that passed the Constitution and supported the policies of George Washington.

Ever since, Americans have been loathe to return to the issue.  Free speech has most often been seen as part of the protection of rights.  Serving in government means exposing oneself to the unkind jabs of opponents.  Abraham Lincoln's features, now seen as physiological signs of majesty, were attacked as unspeakably ugly. At 300 pounds on entering office, William Howard Taft was doomed from the start.  Schenk v. United States did put limits on speech, but only in terms of preventing reasonably predictable violence or harm.

Now the Department of Justice has extended its heavy handed reach to restore the spirit of the long dead Sedition Act.  A 4th of July parade float featuring a zombie like figure and an outhouse marked "Obama Presidential Library" has prompted an investigation.  A Kenyan national found it offensive, used the word "racist," and reported it to the government.

It does not matter if the float was as tasteless as similar visual jokes made about George W. Bush's legacy several years ago.  This is protected free speech.  Any hint of government action is highly inappropriate because of the chilling effect created.  Parade sponsors, the Odd Fellows, have discussed limiting the scope of allowable floats in response.

What about this float threatened anyone?  Certainly it encouraged people to view the president with contempt.  In America, that is not only legal, but often expected out of some quarters.

Whether or not a display is too tasteless is the purview of the community, not the federal government.  The attorney general needs to recall the investigators. Free speech is still the law of the land in the United States.

Five Important American Events That Happened on July 4th

July 4th is the day we celebrate our independence, despite the fact that the actual act declaring independence passed the Continental Congress two days earlier.

Today, it's a day of fireworks, barbecues, and celebration.  In the past, however, it also was remembered for humiliating defeat, sad passings, and decisive victories.  Each involved one of America's most respected figures.

Fort Necessity at Great Meadows.  Here in a clearing in western Pennsylvania began a world war that transformed the British Empire and gave an American icon his first taste of military responsibility.

Europe had divided into two camps: Britain and her small club of allies against France and the most formidable empires on the Continent.  Any spark could set off a war covering the globe.  France and the British colony of Virginia both claimed the Forks of the Ohio, now Pittsburgh.  Virginia's colonial government sent 19 year old Major George Washington to set their claim on more solid ground.

Washington found Fort Duquesne already built at the forks, watched his Indian allies butcher a French patrol, then went to Great Meadow and built one of the worst fortifications ever constructed.  It sat near a source of water, but was surrounded by high ground on all sides, had large gaps in the wall, and had treelines within shooting distance.  The French could fire into it all day while hiding behind the massive virgin timber.

The Virginians fled the fort on July 4th.  French troops caught up, forced Washington to sign humiliating terms of capitulation, then sent him home to Virginia who immediately put him to work . . . building forts. 

July 4, 1754.  Proof that failure teaches better than success. 

One of the greatest friendships/rivalries in the history of this, or any other country.  John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

They knew each other for nearly 50 years, although no one would say they spent that long as friends.  Adams' careful editing of the Declaration of Independence chased Jefferson from the Continental Congress into a multi-year pout.

Jefferson's self-imposed exile eventually ended.  Both men spent the post war period struggling to represent the United States (one nation or 13, many asked before passage of the Constitution.)  Both Adams and Jefferson earned more respect as individuals than they could sell for their country.  Their intellects differed, Adams more pragmatic, Jefferson more idealistic, but they complemented each other at this point even as they mainly interacted through correspondence.

Later, Jefferson and Adams clashed.  Not so much when Jefferson served as a restive secretary of state and Adams an ignored vice president, but  certainly when both ran for president.  One of the few major flaws in the founding document gave second place in the Electoral College the vice presidency.  The Federalist Adams had to constantly fend off attacks from his own vice president in the highly partisan press of the time.

Both men ran again in 1800.  Reason turned some of the more vicious partisan statements into campaign ads. Their mutual hatred lasted for well over a decade after.

Eventually hard feelings softened.  The two preeminent American intellects of the early 19th century sat on the political trash heap, rarely consulted.  Adams' son John Quincy and Jefferson's political son James Madison assumed the stage.  Between the two men emerged a remarkable series of letters about a wide spectrum of subjects.  Much of the correspondence involved questions, answers, and responses to answers.  

Intellectual sharing grew into a fully reborn and close friendship that lasted until July 4th, 1826.  As Adams lay on his deathbed, his final words were, Jefferson still lives.

But Adams was wrong.  His former bitter rival and close friend had died the same day.

One thing often forgotten about the Civil War, the Union did not see its victory as inevitable until the very end.  Northern superiority in so many fields could not easily defeat a fully mobilized Confederacy fighting on its own soil.  

The Union in 1862 had come close to capturing the Confederate capital of Richmond, but had to retreat despite being in sight of its goal.  Antietam was technically a victory for the Union in the fall of the year, but left Lincoln frustrated because General McClellan seemed uninterested in finishing off Lee's army.

Meanwhile, social cohesion in the South deteriorated.  Most of the Confederate States saw their ability to enforce authority break down in the back country.  Lee knew that European help would not come and that the South would lose a war of attrition.  He gambled on a master stroke: striking north.

Meanwhile, Ulysses S. Grant hammered his own war of attrition against Mississippi Valley strongholds.  Like Lincoln, he understood the Confederacy would only lose when its armies were destroyed.  He ground away at strong points that the South felt compelled to defend, like Vicksburg.

Lee's three day assault on fortified Union lines near Gettysburg cost his army.  The best of his beloved Virginians died on the third day and his Army of Northern Virginia staggered home on July 4th.

Grant surrounded Vicksburg, last Confederate held position on the Mississippi.  Over several weeks, his tightening grip strangled Confederate resistance.  When Vicksburg ran out of victuals, its commander proposed surrender.  Grant refused to accept until the 4th of July.

Famous Last Words

Pope Gregory VII
Gregory VII served as Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church from 1073 to 1085.  In Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV, he found his chief rival for leadership over the Christian world. Henry ignored the Papal edicts and earned an excommunication (was cut off from the Holy Sacraments) and, far worse, interdict.  This meant that good Christian subjects of the emperor no longer had a moral duty to obey.  How many times in world history has the most powerful temporal leader subjugated himself as Henry did to Gregory, standing in the snow barefoot outside a castle for three days.

Not that Henry changed his ways, but for Gregory the submission of governmental power to the spiritual made the point clearly enough.  At the end of his life, Norseman raiders drove the Papal government away from Rome.  As he died, Pope Gregory VII lamented:

I have loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore I die in exile.

Major General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson C.S.A.

In 1859, Thomas Jackson was a classic campus radical.  Offspring of a western Virginia "fine family" and veteran of the Mexican War, Jackson probably got more slack than most contemporaries.  His eccentricities (later called obsessive compulsive disorder) included a fear of slouching due to the possibility that his organs might get compressed.  Once, told by his superior at Virginia Military Institute to wait outside, he obeyed completely.  Of course the superior forgot Jackson, left by another door, and found the professor still sitting there the next morning.  Jackson angered many by opening classes to teach slave children to read.

The Civil War revealed Jackson's brilliance.  More than most other military minds, he understood the value of maps.  He commissioned the first detailed maps of the Shenandoah Valley and proceeded to own it for two years.  At Chancellorsville, he met death in the form of an accidental bullet from one of his own troops.

Stonewall Jackson left posterity with typically beautiful, typically Christian imagery:

Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees

Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus

Or just plain "Nero."  Emperor Nero ruled between 37 and 68 Anno Domini, although most of those years may not have seemed like the years of any good lord to most Romans.  Eccentricity turned to despotism as the mad singer imposed his horrible songs and depraved lusts indiscriminately.  After the great fire of Rome, often blamed on Nero himself, the emperor targeted the Christians.  St. Peter died hanging upside down on a cross by Nero's order.

Nero considered himself first and foremost a great singer and few would disagree with him while he held power.  Finally he was condemned as a public enemy and forced to commit suicide, at which point the ever dramatic Nero proclaimed

What an artist is now about to perish!

Lou Costello

One half of the great mid century comedy team Abbott and Costello.  Costello was one of many comics outsized in physique and personality, inspiring future greats like John Belushi, John Candy, and Chris Farley.  Abbott and Costello performed in live acts, movies, and eventually television.  Most remember the duo for their fast paced, complicated, several minute long "Who's On First" routine.   Although both men were staples of American entertainment for decades, neither grew rich.  These, of course, were the days of the 98 percent tax bracket that made Ronald Reagan a Republican.  Both men died broke, the IRS harassing them to their grave.

Costello's last words summed up his public perception and love of life

That was the best ice cream soda I ever tasted

President John Adams

It's hard to find a picture of John Adams with even a hint of a smile.  Even as president, Adams seemed to fear showing the world the impish personality shared with his family.  Too often, conflicts over ideals boiled into personal feuds with the sensitive intellect.

History pairs him with the equally sensitive disposition of Thomas Jefferson.  When young Jefferson's Declaration of Independence met the tough editing hand of Adams, the writer sulked back to Monticello for most of the rest of the Revolution.  Building the Republic, at least early on, kindled a deep friendship based on shared abilities and goals.

That is, until the 1790s.  They differed over President Washington, principles of government, and almost everything else.  Adams' victory over Jefferson in the election of 1796, by a soon corrected constitutional flaw, made Adams president and Jefferson his second.  Neither man was ever capable of keeping political rivalry from growing personal.  They soon hated each other.

After Jefferson's two stormy terms of office, tempers cooled.  The two Founding Fathers, seen less as inspiration and more as living relics by the younger generation, did as old men usually did.  They complained about the young.  They reopened a correspondence and a friendship that produced some of the greatest political letters and debates ever put from pen to paper.

They rarely saw each other, but their friendship deepened over time.  On July 4, 1826, Adams lay suffering on his deathbed in his beloved Braintree farmhouse.  As he felt his last moment coming, he sputtered in relief

Thomas Jefferson still survives

Unfortunately Adams was mistaken.  Jefferson died earlier that same day.

Major General John Sedgewick

Sedgewick carries the unfortunate distinction of being the highest ranking Union officer to die on the field of battle in the drive on Richmond. He started his adult professional life as a teacher, but soon went to West Point, following the footsteps of his grandfather, a Revolutionary War general.

Revolutionary War and Civil War officers shared a higher mortality rate than command officers today.  They followed the example of  George Washington who, when necessary, believed in leading his troops from the front.

Frustrated with his units' lines not going exactly where he wanted them to go, he endeavored to instruct them in person.  Warned by his aide to not go to a certain spot due to Confederate snipers, Sedgewick exclaimed

Why, what are you dodging about? They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!

The snipers proved him wrong, putting a bullet through his eye.  He died with the smile on his face that accompanied his underestimation of his enemies' shooting prowess.

Charles George Gordon

Probably the most acclaimed British hero between Lord Nelson and Winston Churchill.  He had already enjoyed military success in China before going to Africa.

In Africa, he led an Egyptian force into Khartoum.  His purpose was to hold it against the army of a self-proclaimed Islamic prophet called the Mahdi.  The Mahdi whipped up anti British sentiment, mostly based on the suppression of the slave trade, and laid siege to Gordon and his Egyptian troops.  While they held out, they waited for a hesitant British government led by William Gladstone for relief.  Eventually help was sent, but too late.

His men lasted until they ran out of food and ammunition, then fought to the death.  Death would have been their fate regardless.  Alan Moorhead in The White Nile described Gordon's end.

He stood at the top of the stairs of the palace that served as his headquarters.  As the mob rushed towards him, swords drawn, Gordon calmly turned his back.

Without a word, Gordon met his grizzly fate.

Ten Interesting Presidents

Not the best ten.  Just ten interesting holders of the highest office in the land.

The American presidency has always had an allure unique among worldwide offices.  It grants many of the powers assumed by Augustus, first emperor of Rome.  The caveat is that office holders have a relatively short time to govern and that they must be chosen.

George Washington

Not just the greatest President.  Not just the greatest American.  Truly one of the great figures in world history.  Without his calls to action and leadership, the American Revolution likely dissolves into a society of complainers and philosophy students.  Guided the Constitutional Convention, often with glances instead of words.  Defined what a president should be and how one should act.

Those who downgrade his accomplishments forget that he had to also establish international respect for America's territorial integrity and national credit during a world war.

Not placing Washington in the top spot as president is sheer trolling.

Washington believed strongly in the dignity of office, even among close friends as Governeur Morris found to his embarrassment. His belief in republican simplicity extended to wearing black suits instead of military dress and forbidding music or announcements when he entered a room.  If a president deserves respect and attention, he will get it without the extra fuss.

John Adams

Obviously not a digital photo of the real John Adams.  This is Paul Giamatti from the outstanding HBO miniseries based on the outstanding David McCullough book.

Modern students of history love John Adams.  We all know someone like Adams.  Or maybe some of us are this guy.  Brilliant beyond measure.  But also jealous (rightfully) of not getting the credit he deserves.  Often grumpy and cynical (these traits usually soothed, but also occasionally stoked by his also brilliant wife Abigail.  And held legendary grudges against Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and others.

Adams just didn't fit in.  Not on his diplomatic missions to North Africa, Britain, and elsewhere; not with the intellectual set at the Constitutional Convention; not with men of action like Washington.

But without his intellect, work, and guidance, our Republic may not be here.  His 20 hour days keeping things together at the Continental Congress built the nation.  His presidency is remembered more for its foolish acceptance of bad laws than its creation of the United States Navy and successful fight against France.

The second president proves that social awkwardness and unchained, stubborn, untactful brilliance can succeed somewhere besides social media.  Then again, in our time, Adams may never have been able to break free of Facebook argument.

By the way, Adams owes David McCullough big time.

Andrew Jackson

Jackson needs more attention.  It is tempting to judge him directly on a single action, the Cherokee removal.  Here, Jackson violated property rights and federal law to assist gold prospectors (basically the kind of crony capitalism that happens regularly in Washington today.)

That being said, Jackson represented a new democracy that in many ways diametrically opposed his removal of the Cherokees from their home.  He stood for property rights, individual freedom, limited government, and workable state sovereignty.  For the first time, the West had a voice in government through the figure of the backwoods warlord. William Henry Harrison, James Polk and Lincoln would follow after.

Jackson's impact on the Democratic Party lasted longer.  Mistrust of big business and big government alike permeated the Southern backwoods.  Belief that the Democratic Party represented these values only died in the last generation.

James K. Polk

Polk was neo-con when neo-con wasn't cool.  This surprisingly Mel Gibson looking president represented the Democratic Party's return to running backwoodsmen who could pass as commoners (after the one term of New York businessman Martin van Buren.)  Polk stood for election on annexing Texas and Oregon.  As it turns out, most of the nation agreed.  As did Texas and the region of Oregon Territory ultimately added to the Union.

Polk gets blamed for the Mexican War.  Historians cite both Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee as sources blaming land greed for a war they deemed wrong.  Grant and Lee were also both in the Whig Party, which could give some context to their opposition.

Fact is that Polk may have wanted a war with Mexico.  But he did not want war worse than the Mexicans themselves.  Mexico picked fights repeatedly during the mid 1800s and lost all of them, including (I kid you not) the Pastry War with France.  The Mexicans refused Polk's offer to pay for Texas annexation, which was completely unnecessary under international law.  They declared war.  If Polk had set a trap, Mexico walked into it.

Polk's handling of the Mexican War should have blown up in his face.  He removed Zachary Taylor from command out of fears that the general would grow too popular and become president, a correct prediction.  But Mexico, under the leadership of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, lacked the organization and the economic strength behind the American forces.

Polk promised to serve one term.  He kept his promise.  That alone is worth remembering.

No Lincoln here

The most written about man in human history, which would have surprised him.  No need to write more.

Ulysses S. Grant

This is how America should remember Grant.  Grant's most well-known Civil War era picture shows the 21st century what swagger truly is.  Against his enemies both in the Confederacy and in the Union Army itself, Grant applied slow, steady, relentless pressure.  He used Northern economic and population superiority to wear down the South, while relying on Lincoln's support against military command rivals.

But America remembers the image that goes along with fifty dollar bill Grant.  Rounder face, protruding stomach tightening his suit.  History associates this Grant with his poor choices of friends and officeholders, many of whom betrayed him and the public trust.

Grant, however, earned his enemies while president by doing the right things as well.  He aggressively used the power of the new Department of Justice and the military to stamp out Ku Klux Klan terrorism.  Grant worked to treat Indians as humanely and respectfully as possible, blaming much of the friction on settler troublemakers.  These grew unpopular as Reconstruction lasted 12 years longer than the Civil War itself and as political officeholders found themselves booted from Indian Affairs jobs.

He also lost support during one of the worst depressions in American history.  Grant and the Republican Congress strengthened the dollar and did little else.  The economy bounced back in four years, as opposed to much longer stretches under Franklin Roosevelt and Barack Obama.  All of these unpopular moves required courage in the face of certain declines in popularity.

Grant was a great general.  He was also one of the great autobiographers in history.  But his virtues as a military man and a writer failed to serve him as a president or a businessman.

Rutherford B. Hayes

At the time of his nomination in 1876, Hayes had earned the description of "the good gray governor."  This came from a lifetime of being quietly competent and just.

Hayes' Civil War service started in the backwoods of western Virginia.  He was among the first to encounter the rise of guerrilla fighting as he marched his columns through narrow valleys.  Despite the frustrations, Hayes rarely let the situation get the better of him.  He upbraided a subordinate for the punitive burning of a courthouse.  Toward the end of the war, Hayes escaped the raid that captured two other Union generals.  He, Washingtonlike, shared the discomforts of his men by camping with them in frigid February 1865.  the other two stayed in a lavish hotel with few guards.

Reconstruction ended in 1877 as part of the deal bringing Hayes to office.  The razor thin margins threatened to unleash another Civil War.  Neither side particularly supported the quid pro quo and its contribution to the long term establishment of Jim Crow is undeniable.

So why is Hayes "interesting?"  Because he and his wife "Lemonade Lucy" (named so because she did not allow alcohol in the White House) may be the most boring of First Families.  Hayes lived quietly, administered the government, did not seek attention, and stepped aside after one term.  Like his military career, his presidency was quiet, effective, competent, and forgettable due to its success.  No one ever writes about cruise ship captains who never wreck.  And few are interested in a president so lacking in the dazzling show that the office has become.

And that is precisely why he is worth remembering.

William McKinley

Last of the Civil War officer presidents.  McKinley, like Garfield, Harrison, and Hayes all served in the West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky theater of war.

McKinley ushered in a generation of Republican Party dominance and straddled eras.  He was the last front porch campaigner who sat at home in the traditional way and let subordinates do all the work.  But his campaign started the use of mailed campaign literature.  Historians lump him with the 19th century presidents, but his annexation of the Philippines marked the United States' entry into international affairs.

McKinley fails to make the grade of "great presidents" in most academic lists.  He, however, won a war against Spain that he personally tried to head off.  Under McKinley the national economy boomed (albeit under anti-free market and probably unnecessary protective tariffs.)

It's hard to argue with success.

History's problem with McKinley is that he served right before Theodore Roosevelt, who was never supposed to be president.  Had McKiney not died by an assassin's bullet, he likely would have been succeeded by another honest competent senator, West Virginia's Stephen Elkins who was seen as the next Republican option.  McKinley was, however, assassinated by a terrorist and the polymath Roosevelt took office.

William Howard Taft

Taft, like Adams, has earned a spot in the hearts of historians (if not their rankings) because of his humanness next to a blue star of a predecessor.

He did not want to go to law school in the first place.  His father, however, insisted that law school provided more of a future than catching for the Cincinnati Reds.

Taft worked well when working with someone else.  Under Theodore Roosevelt, he solved problems across the globe, most notably in the Philippines where his conciliatory policies quelled a revolt.

He never wanted to be president.  Mrs. Taft, however, had enough ambition for both of them.  Jealous of the spotlight on her husband's friend Teddy, she allied with the president to badger Taft into a job he didn't want.

Roosevelt expected his friend to remain his cipher, following his policies to the letter.  The lawyer Taft, however, made decisions based on rule of law, as opposed to the Roosevelt way of favoring friends and skewering enemies.  This made an enemy out of Roosevelt who skewered Taft in the election of 1912, bringing an ignominious end to the political careers of both.

Taft got the last laugh, ending up with the job he coveted more than any other.  Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, making him one of the most accomplished men in US history that few remember outside of a certain bathtub incident.

Calvin Coolidge

Less talk.  Only acted when necessary.  Country remained at peace.  National economy boomed.

And he wore a dazzling array of cool hats.

Why Zimmerman and Not Egypt?

On one hand, a guy either defended himself from attack or murdered someone in a Florida town.  On the other, the military of a strategically significant country overthrew an elected leader to the delight of the people.

Why did the world shaking news of the Egypt coup rate a minor blip on the American cable news scene?

Part of it comes down to the nature of criminal trials.  What role do they play in culture?  The adversarial nature of a criminal trial combined with the subjectiveness of a jury judging the success or failure of a prosecution's case gives it a baser significance.  Trials, always more so than sports, represent social release.  The Roman emperors used to hold gladiatorial games to distract the people and channel their passions.  They "played" for stakes of life and death.  At times, the head of state got to weigh in on whether a combatant lived or died.

For better or worse, jury trials for centuries have fulfilled that role in America. 

Go back to the 1700s.  The capital murder trials of the Boston Massacre soldiers, defended brilliantly by the patriot John Adams.  No trial has ever matched that one for high drama.  An opponent of British rule convinces a blood bent Massachusetts jury to acquit the soldiers who killed several in the Boston Massacre.  The drama and the bigger issues made it a landmark of justice.  Like many equally famed trials later, the jury required a strong standard of proof to convict despite the social pressure to do so. 

The Zimmerman trial, however, does not reflect current issues as much as it resuscitates the ghosts of conflicts of ages past.  Hispanic on black racism?  Class judgment?  Just a guy trying to be the neighborhood tough guy going one step too far? Or was it a man watching out for his neighborhood?

Racism is as much of a modern issue as anti Catholicism.  It will always lurk in the background, but it no longer looms as large as it once did.  Times change, but memories remain.  Those running the news outlets today grew up in those times and lived in that context.  It is hard for them to understand that America has moved on.  The old paradigm is gone forever.  Nevertheless, it is good politics in some quarters to keep the fading issue alive.

News outlets believed that the Zimmerman trial formed a confluence of trial drama and race debate.  They spent a lot of time and money preparing to cover it as intensely as possible.  Egypt's military rudely launched a coup, disrupting the American media's preferred order.  It had no experts on scene, no reporters breathlessly standing in parking lots outside the coup, packed with meaningless or old information.

Americans proved to be more interested in the coup.  They packed social media, following reporters on the scene.  Online, they turned to BBC, Reuters, and other international outlets.  History was in the making.  A man that the people had elected had tried to transform himself into a tyrant.  They got the military's help in declaring independence from him.

Judging from the reaction of Obama and some other nations, not many understood the fact that an election confers a trust to follow the law, not a mandate to impose one's will.  The people and armed forces of Egypt acted on that very ideal.

And that should have been the big debate of the day.  The role of elections and the responsibility of the elected.  News outlets should have recognized the drama, understood the significance, and devoted analysis to the possibilities good and bad that could arise. 

But they didn't.  And that is why we do not trust our media.

Somali Pirates, Q-Ships and Convoys

As early as 1783 Islamic Pirates were attacking US Merchantmen off the coast of Africa capturing them and demanding ransom. In 1786 Thomas Jefferson and John Adams tried to negotiate with a representative of the terrorist. They were told, “It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise” by Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja.

On August 1^st, 1801 the frigate USS Enterprise engaged and defeated an Islamic Pirate ship in the Mediterranean that had been attacking US shipping. It was the first time that a nation had stood up to the Islamic terrorist. Europe then as now just paid ransom and practiced a process of appeasement with terrorist. For the next few years the US Navy patrolled the Mediterranean defeating the terrorist on the high seas and US Marines attacked on shore. The battle of Tripoli, Libya is remembered in the Marine Hymn and was the first time America took on the Islamic Terrorist and won over 200 years ago.

Today the Islamic Pirates are at it again off the coast of Africa. They captured another US Merchantmen, the “Maersk Alabama,” but unlike the other Merchantmen of the world, the US crew fought back. After 200 years the Islamic Pirates have forgotten how Americans react, but the US Navy must respond as it did 200 years ago.

The world has changed, but the one thing the terrorist understand hasn’t and that is a show of force. We learn from our history, or at least we should. Two things that have worked in the past will work here. The first is to form convoys as was done in World War I and II. This is where merchant ships form a fleet and are escorted through hostile waters by armed naval vessels. This has worked in the past and will work here. The Somali Pirates would be fools to take on actual warships.

Since the Islamic Pirates are not likely to attack an escorted convoy, they will look for easier prey, those lone ships that wander into their hunting ground. This is where the Q-Ships come in. Q-Ships were used to lure German U-boats to the surface in both World War I and II. The Q-Ships look like normal merchant vessels, but in reality caring no cargo. They are crewed by navy personal, carried hidden heavy weapons, and the cargo holds are filled with empty oil drums to keep them afloat should they be damaged in battle. When the U-boats would surface to attack the unarmed merchantmen, the Q-Ship reveals its armament and attacks. Today a modern Q-ship would be the perfect weapon to take on the Muslim Pirates and destroy them, leaving enough survivors to warn other pirates that all merchantmen are not what they appear. On second thought leave no survivors, let them all come out to engage the Q-Ships.

No Title of Nobility Shall be Granted

231 years ago the 13 British colonies declared independence, in the Declaration of Independence, they clearly stated, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Five statesmen from Massachusetts signed that document; John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine and Elbridge Gerry.

March 4, 2009 British Prime Minster, Gordon Brown stood before a joint session of the US Congress and stated, “I want to announce that Her Majesty The Queen, has awarded an honorary Knighthood for Sir Edward Kennedy.” Now our founding fathers knew that titles of nobility inferred inequality of men. They promptly outlawed titles of nobility in the Articles of Confederation to insure the equality of men.

When considering the new constitution the Founding Fathers had very strong convictions. The outlawing of nobility titles was so important that James Madison had this to say about including that prevision in the new constitution, “The prohibition with respect to titles of nobility is copied from the articles of Confederation and needs no comment.” - January 25th, 1788, Federalist Papers #44

Alexander Hamilton ranked the banishment of nobility titles at the top, he even used all capital letters for emphases when he wrote, “The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex-post-facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, TO WHICH WE HAVE NO CORRESPONDING PROVISION IN OUR CONSTITUTION, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains” He went on to say, “Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers #84

As we know from history the pleas fell on receptive ears, because the banishment of titles of nobility made it into the US Constitution under Article 1, Section 9, “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Today Senator Ted Kennedy and the US Congress have to make a decision. Are they statesmen or politicians? I think we can guess what the first Massachusetts Senators Caleb Strong and Tristram Dalton would recommend. Senator Kennedy should politely say, “No, thank you,” sighting the US Constitution. While Senator Kennedy has a long and distinguished career he is our equal nothing more. Congress should grant no exception and if Senator Kennedy wishes to accept, then he should resign from his office and renounce his US citizenship, just as the founding fathers renounced their British citizenship in order to form a nation of equals.

Jefferson-Jackson Dinners and Mexican Trucks

This year, the guy that Democrats probably should have selected as their vice presidential nominee will speak at their state Jefferson-Jackson Dinner. A moderate from a southern state that shows the possibility of swinging Democrat should have been a better choice than an old timer from a blue state.

Tim Kaine is not the issue today. You have to wonder why they still hold Jefferson-Jackson Dinners when neither man has much to do with the modern Democratic Party philosophy.

In the 1850s leaders of the new anti-slavery party called themselves "Republicans" because they identified with Thomas Jefferson's stand against slavery in the Northwest Territories. Although his party eventually took the name Democrats, they called themselves "Republican" in the 1790s. Jefferson was far from perfect. His stand against slavery conflicted with the fact that he owned slaves until his death. As president he deprived political opponents of land through eminent domain. However, his principles reflected a belief in limited government that modern Democrats, especially Obama, loathe. To them government answers all questions. Jefferson would be the first to disown such a movement.

Andrew Jackson also had considerable flaws. His war against the Bank of the United States ruined the economy while the "spoils system" of federal patronage encouraged widespread corruption and incompetence. Worst of all, Jackson forced peaceful Cherokee Indians to abandon their ancestral lands promised to them in perpetuity by President John Adams and Congress. Jackson, however, is identified with the ideals of individual freedom and the right of every citizen, no matter how humble their beginnings, to pursue their opportunity. People have the right to work hard to pursue their dreams and the responsibility to live with the choices they make as well as the risks they assume. Jackson's followers feared big business, but not as much as they hated big government. Jackson also believed in aggressive defense of our nation's security.

Certainly some of the stains, especially on Jackson's reputation, would not lead me to advocate the Republican Party hosting Jefferson-Jackson Dinners. However, there is nothing in the positive ideals or achievements of either of these men that identify them with the Big Government, freedom diminishing tendencies of Barack Obama and today's liberal Democrats.

*******************************************************************

Leave it to the Charleston Gazette to publish all the liberal news that is fit to print.

The House of Representatives voted to end a pilot program allowing Mexican truck firms certain access to American soil. Shelley Moore Capito and the Mountain State's two other congressmen voted to end teh program. While Charleston's morning paper ran extensive statements by Rahall and Mollohan, apparently they forgot that their own congressional representative, Capito, also had an opinion on the matter.

The Gazette will not only endorse Capito's opponent, they will actively slant the news to try and unseat the Republican congresswoman. This is part of a four decade feud launched by the newspaper against the Moore family. Responsible journalism takes a backseat to hate when it comes to the Gazette.