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.

Has the Federal Government Inadvertently Set a States' Rights Precedent? Delegates Sobonya and Cowles Think So

Since 1819, McCullough v. Maryland has served as the law of the land.  At that time, state governments exercised more power and held more credibility than the still infant federal government.  Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supreme Court sought to bolster the federal government's position to prevent disruption from jealous states.

Marshall wrote the opinion broadly enough so that it legally prevented any state from officially acting in contradiction to any federal policy or agency.  State police cannot even legally pull over a federal vehicle that is speeding.

Obviously this decision came in the context of its times.  The federal government was very small and claimed few powers.  Some of the states had existed for almost or over 200 years as political units.

Delegates Kelli Sobonya (R) Cabell, and Darryl Cowles (R) Morgan, think they may see a breach in the iron wall of McCullough.  

In a recent Legislative committee meeting on medical marijuana covered by the Charleston Daily Mail , Sobonya queried about the inconsistent enforcement of marijuana laws by the federal government.

If Sobonya and Cowles are right, then the Obama Administration may have opened the door to states ignoring laws that they find onerous to their citizens.  EPA regulations and Obamacare were cited by the delegates as examples.

Delegate Gary Howell (R) Mineral later noted "civil society depends on rule of law.  You can't just have the president and his political aides pick and choose what to enforce.  Then we have a government of men, not of laws, which John Adams saw as a prime threat to liberty."  He also SAID that the inconsistent enforcement could set a precedent where states can legally defend their own interests.

It should be noted that no court or statute has ever refuted the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions penned by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.  If the federal government violates the Constitution, according to Madison in the Virginia Resolution, "necessary and proper measures" must be taken to protect the people's rights.    Madison never specified what those ought to be.  At the very least, it would seem that Virginia, Kentucky, and West Virginia can refer to these works as grounds of legal argument.

Post Script:  Full disclosure.  I support legalization of medical marijuana.  Frankly those who support it should take more issue with the Obama Administration's non enforcement than with either enforcing or getting rid of the law.  By not enforcing the law, Obama is allowing businesses to grow.  Those businesses will always be subject to legal extortion by the federal government because the law can always be held over them as a Sword of Damocles.

Neo-Confederates?

The scribes at West Virginia Blue, with their usual grasp of history and facts, have dubbed those supporting the Intrastate Coal and Use Act "Neo-Confederates." This must come from the fact that they are citing the Tenth Amendment and its defense of states' rights.

The Confederates did cite states' rights in defense of their cause, as did the legislators in the last session. That must mean that abolitionists in the North between 1850 and the Civil War were Confederates beofre the fact. In 1850, Congress passed a Fugitive Slave Act that expanded the law enforcement powers of United states Marshals and infringed upon property rights. Abolitionists cited states' rights in opposition. This makes them pre Confederates, according to the Democratic blog.

Other pre-Confederates, according to the logic of West Virginia Blue, include Democratic Party founders Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They were the first to articulate states' rights doctrine. In 1798, they penned the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions that claimed state courts could find federal laws unconstitutional. The law that created such powerful objections was the Sedition Act. This law made it a crime to satirize or make any untrue statements about the government, its policies, or its officials. In other words, today it would allow the arrest of newspaper editors, the cast and crew of Saturday Night Live, and a lot of bloggers. Who defines what the truth is about the government? The government would! Jefferson and Madison knew no other recourse against such an abominable law rather than to resort to states' rights doctrine. And Madison, being the architect of the Constitution, would know what could and could not be done.

Since we are on the subject of associating ideas with regimes, I wonder if anyone at West Virginia Blue has ever done the following:

Driven on the interstate

Ridden in a jet plane

Used satellite television

Approved of Obama using cruise missiles in Libya

Owned, drove, or simply admired a Volkswagen

If so, this makes them neo-Nazis. The National Socialists came up with the idea of the authobahn, which Eisenhower adapted into the interstate highway system. The German Air Force invented the jet engine. Germans in World War II created the ballistic and cruise missiles; of course ballistic missiles were the basis for the rockets that brought the advance of space flight and satellite deployment. And we all know that Volkswagens were "Hitler's car."

The states' rights principles articulated by Republicans and Democrats in the past session are meant to put checks on an overreaching federal government. A bipartisan group of men and women want to make economic conditions better for everyone, regardless of race. They see the federal government standing in the way at every turn. and just like the co-founders of the Democratic Party, Messrs. Jefferson and Madison, they see states' rights as a shield of liberty when the federal government goes too far.

Remember the Federalists

In the 1790s the Federalist Party had a secure grip on power. People associated them with the Constitution, George Washington, security, and prosperity. As late as 1796 they dominated elections to the presidency and Congress. How did they lose power by 1800?

Much of the reason lies in the passage of the Sedition Act. Sedition is the criminalization of attacks on the government. If the government decides that the origin is either satirical or untrue (in the 1798 version anyway) it can move towards prosecuting the writer, cartoonist, or speaker. Many Federalists enthusiastically backed this act despite its blatant violation of the Constitution. John Marshall, a Virginia Federalist, argued against it and it shocked, scared, and angered the opposition Democratic-Republican Party.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison from Virginia feared that the anger stirred up by this act could cause a civil war. Perhaps many Federalists, publicly or privately, supported this as a way to finally get a virulent press off their backs. However the people saw it as an attack on liberty and the natural right to speak freely, even in dissent, about government. Jefferson and Madison tried to assuage the people by penning the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions that asserted the right of state courts to declare federal laws unconstitutional.

Voters punished the Federalists by expelling them from power in 1800. They found themselves loathed as aspiring tyrants and their party disintegrated by 1815. Its most promising leaders, such as John Quincy Adams, left to join the Democratic-Republicans to escape the tarnish.

Democrats need to look very hard at history before they vote for unpopular expenditures and expansion of federal power. It might not mean simply their loss of power, but perhaps the destruction of a venerable institution that has contributed much to the national discussion over the centuries. Kowtowing to an authoritarian left wing element just because it currently has authority will not help moderate Democrats in the long run. Tyrants never last. Remember the motto of Madison and Jefferson's home commonwealth: Sic Semper Tyrannis

Rockefeller, Byrd must vote NO on Anti-Gun Sotomayor

Sotomayor had this to say on gun rights, "I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans. In fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. And I have friends who hunt." She said nothing on her stance in that statement. Understanding how important gun rights are to some and supporting the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution are two different things. Having friends that hunt or family that are members of the NRA, doesn’t mean she shares those opinions. That was a total dodge of the question. You only dodge the question when you do not want to reveal your true feelings.

When Tom Coburn of Oklahoma asked about gun rights, Sotomayor said, "I can't answer...because I can't look at it in the abstract.” There is nothing abstract about the 2^nd Amendment. It is quite clear, “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Coburn went on and pressed Sotomayor asking if a person had a fundamental right to self defense. Sotomayor’s reply should have been, “Yes!” It was not, she stated, "What we do is different than the conversations citizens have about what they want the law to do. It's not that we make a broad policy choice and say this is what we want."

Founding Father Thomas Jefferson summed up his feelings in letter to Peter Minor, July 20, 1822 when he wrote, “I presume he is a gun-man, as I am sure he ought to be, and every American who wishes to protect his farm from the ravages of quadrupeds & his country from those of biped invaders. I am a great friend to the manly and healthy exercises of the gun.” The Founding Fathers were quite clear the right to defend ones self and ones nation were to be in the hands of the people. Sotomayor’s position does not reflect that of the majority of the nation, the people of West Virginia or that of the Founding Fathers. Our Senators in Washington should vote NO on her appointment to the US Supreme Court and we must ask them to vote NO. The number for the Senate switch board is 202-225-3121.

Sypolt Is More Jeffersonian Than Most Attendees of Jefferson Day Dinners

State Senator Dave Sypolt spoke to the Keyser Rotary last week about legislative affairs. One theme that he constantly returned to while discussing the business of the Legislature and the running of state government was efficiency and reduction of costs. For example, he suggested using technology to integrate state information systems to make operations more efficient. That alone could save a great deal of money and reduce the need for personnel. It would also make delivering information less time consuming. Sypolt also criticized the "think tax" mentality of many in state government when it comes to meeting revenue shortfalls. He stated over and over that if we run government more effectively, we can save enough money to make up the difference. Senator Sypolt by principle votes against tax hikes.

Senator Sypolt is right and his principles are very much shared by the founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson. While researching my Saturday column, I found repeated statements written at different times in Jefferson's life advocating for small government. Elected officials must remain vigilant and cut programs and positions whenever possible. That way, the government does not have to raise taxes that could ruin private fortunes for public consumption, as Jefferson once explained. The State of West Virginia has a stagnant population. With technology improving constantly, there is no need for our state budget to continue to expand at 8% per year. As Senator Sypolt explained, if we use it right technology can keep our budget at the same levels year after year. Sure this means less political jobs for the administration to use to reward the faithful, but the people of the state would be grateful and vote for any party that cut the budget and taxes for them.

Small government? Less taxes? How often do you hear those concepts at Democratic Jefferson Day Dinners? Sounds like the GOP should have Jefferson dinners, not the modern Democratic Party.

Our Vision As West Virginia Republicans Going Into 2010

Historically, the West Virginia Republican Party has succeeded best when it has effectively sold its message. A lot of factors go into that sale, including the willingness of the opposition to live up to the image that we apply to them. Republicans in 1888 controlled nothing in West Virginia. By 1896 they wrested control of the state. Why? Because they sold their message of industrial based prosperity, asserting that the state could only do more to better people's lives if it had an economy that could pay for things such as roads and schools. The Democrats, in turn, offered no pragmatic vision.

Just my opinion here, no one else's, but I suggest that we tailor our message in this coming year to fit our national mission statement: the Declaration of Independence.

Citing this document makes it very clear that we as Republicans are drawing parallels to the past, when a government pushed its authority beyond acceptable limits.

We base our message on the three basic jobs of government as cited by Jefferson and his inspiration, George Mason. Jefferson and Mason both talked about the government's role in protecting innocent life and promoting liberty, but Mason finished the phrase with "pursuit of property." These three roles of government reflected a belief in the natural rights of each individual to live their life and make choices.

I would center the message around those three roles.

Life: The Republican Party backs the right of each innocent individual to live their lives. Each human being has the right to be born into this world and make choices about their lives. They also have the responsibility to live with the consequences of those choices without a nanny state bailout.

Liberty: The Republican Party believes that a democracy can rest upon nothing less than the belief that individuals have the capacity to make choices that reflect their own personal taste and interest. The state has no right to force its citizens to conform to its idea of education, health or welfare.

The Republican Party backs a strong interpretation of the Bill of Rights for each United States citizen. The Second Amendment does not refer to hunting. It gives each citizen the right and even the obligation to defend his property, his life, and his country against all enemies.

Every citizen should have the freedom to speak his mind without fear.

Every citizen should enjoy a reasonable right to enjoy his property without fear of seizure or overregulation.

Taxation for revenue is acceptable. Taxation for social engineering is theft and a transgression on the natural right to pursue and retain property.

Governments should never "take an inventory" of the lives of individual citizens.

Information is power so we call upon the United States Census to have a constitutional limit upon what information a person is required to give. The more the government knows, the less freedom we have.

Pursuit of Happiness/Property: The American economic system is built upon the premise that every participant can make sound economic decisions. When each person pursues their opportunities, some succeed, some fail, but we all end up prosperous. The current economic problems were started in large part by government intervention into the financial sector. We must remember that twenty five years of economic prosperity came after some Democratic congressmen and Ronald Reagan pushed to deregulate and remove the weight of burdensome and unnecessary rules from many businesses.

The Republican Party is devoted to removing all reasonable obstacles in the path of people pursuing and keeping their property. Property ownership in the hands of the people creates a valuable check on the power of government.

This is not an exhaustive list and it may need to be trimmed down to essential, but more general points. Personally I believe we should stick to issues that revolve around personal and economic freedom along with limited government. We must sell ourselves as having the right plan and vision for the economy and society. West Virginia needs less government, especially at the federal level.

Only Republicans have the right ideas going into the next election. With work, we'll get our country back.

Not Hard to See Why Kids Don't Know History

Last week I spent eight hours a day in Louisville, Kentucky grading Advanced Placement exams. Even when you count the fact that the test takers are no longer mostly a hand picked elite, the results are stunningly bad. I am pretty sure that I am bound by some confidentiality arrangement to not discuss specific numbers, but many, many times, the people at my table saw essays where students believed American blacks were still enslaved at the time of World War II. That was only one example. Another repeated mistake was confusing the Vietnam War and World War II's Pacific Theatre. All too many, I would say I saw almost a hundred myself, believed that FDR interned the Japanese because they were Communists.

No, the teachers are not teaching it this way. The kids are tuning out. And in some cases you cannot blame them.

Another overriding issue was the self-hatred that came out of too many essays. Not individually, but hatred of their country, hatred of Caucasians, belittlement of national leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson. On a question about Japanese internments during World War II, FDR is portrayed by some students as equal to Hitler in brutality. Jefferson is described as having raped his female slaves in another (even his worst detractors and rumor mongers say his one affair was consensual, if it even happened at all which David McCullough among others finds very debatable.) Why would students want to learn history if all they hear is how horrible their ancestors and national heroes were? Even if the teachers do not present it this way, the textbooks do. Meanwhile they showed little understanding of the fundamentals of the American ideal except in cases where it was violated.

I will say this, one of the questions that we did not grade did invite the students to say positive things about the early formation of the Republican Party. I glanced at some of those and of course saw mass confusion. The Republican Party was formed in the 1850s, some of them said, to fight slavery at home and Communism abroad.

Newt Gingrich last week at a GOP fundraiser issued a call to reemphasize American History. I would go farther and say we must get back to teaching American values from the start. If nothing else replace one grade of elementary school with Schoolhouse Rock videos. As you have seen on here each Monday, kids could learn more about history, capitalism, and other necessary things from these well-produced videos than they can from almost any other source. Seriously though, we must return to old style history. Put Washington and Lincoln's portraits back on the wall. I mean prints, not some goofy cartoon looking thing. Teach about our heroes, including the people who led, the people who fought, the people who innovated, and the people who risked. We must teach that Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, J. P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, and others were not these horrible oppressors but men who did the best they could with the material God gave them. Without the legacy of Morgan, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and others we do not defeat fascism in World War II, simple as that.

I agree with Newt Gingrich's call to restore American History. But we cannot let the left wing masochists control it.

Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy Are "So Yesterday" According to Hillary Clinton

Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights . . ."

Woodrow Wilson: "I have called the Congress into extraordinary session because there are serious, very serious, choices of policy to be made, and made immediately . . . Our motive will not be revenge or the victorious assertion of the physical might of the nation, but only the vindication of right, of human right, of which we are only a single champion. . . . To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: "Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged."

John F, Kennedy: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more."

Hillary Clinton: "Ideology is so yesterday."

Great. The ideology of Marx, the principles of a vacuum, the foreign policy of Richard Nixon, and the speech patterns of a valley girl. Ladies and gentlemen, this is your secretary of state.

Congratulations.

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.

Lincoln Ranked First Among Presidents By Panel of Sixty Five Historians

Although not surprising that they picked Abraham Lincoln, frankly they got it dead wrong.

There is one single president that transcends the office even while defining it. No president faced the kinds of challenges overcome by this man. No other president comes close to him when one considers leadership ability, long term effect of his presidency, or any other standard of leadership.

It may be unfashionable to speak the obvious, but George Washington is and will always be the greatest president in United States history.

Before Washington there was no office of the president. The Constitution offered some vague details, but little in the way of guidance. Washington's generation had no contemporary examples to serve as models either. King George III? Thanks, but no thanks. The office of Prime Minister was too tied to the legislative branch for Washington's taste (Congress tended to grate on the Father of our Country's nerves.) Washington looked somewhat to the consuls of the Roman Republic, who held many of the same powers. Most of all he looked to his own common sense.

Washington strove to create balance. He needed balance in foreign affairs. A vulnerable infant nation in a world of rapacious Great Powers could not succumb to any one side, but needed to maintain a dignified neutrality. A nation with no economic growth in 1789 needed to balance the agricultural interest with his own vision of America growing into a commercial empire. He had to balance his attention between his two friends and colleagues Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. Most importantly he balanced the need to enhance the respect of the people for the office of president while maintaining an air of republican simplicity.

In short, Washington had to define the office of president and also went a long way towards defining what the United States would be in its distant future. Lincoln was a great president, but no one has ever overcome the kinds of challenges faced by Washington so successfully.

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

Predictably the list of presidents rated George W. Bush very low, even below Carter (who actually dropped since the last ranking.) Seven years of prosperity and security combined with a new respect for the United States around the world did not impress the historians. Of course none of them brought a sliver of bias to the table.

Surprisingly, Ronald Reagan, who used to be placed in the middle or near the bottom, reached number ten. George H. W. Bush, once criticized and ranked poorly because he left Saddam Hussein in place in 1991, rose to number 18.

Washington, Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, James Madison, William McKinley, James K. Polk, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower are my top ten.

Why is Theodore Roosevelt as low as he is? The more I read about his domestic policies, the more squeamish I get. Yes the government needed to expand some regulatory powers, but his tended to follow his own whim rather than the rule of law. Were it not for a wildly successful foreign policy, I'd send him lower. I prefer McKinley who had a strong foreign policy and a more limited ideal of government power. Truman goes before Reagan by a hair because he recognized the Soviet threat before many others and challenged it almost from the beginning. James Madison was flexible enough to alter his position during the War of 1812, casting ideology aside in the greater effort to beat the British. I left out Jefferson because his foreign policy led directly to economic disaster. He also used the authority of his office to financially crush political rivals.

George W. Bush to me is definitely in the top 20. You cannot lay the current financial crisis at his feet since he tried to get both Republican and Democratic congresses to address the various issues that caused the problems. It would be like blaming Isaiah for the Babylonians conquering Judah. It's not his fault that nobody listened. The second Bush will climb as we get further from his presidency.

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.

The Second Amendment Explained

A comment recently argued that the Second Amendment was vague and therefore open to an interpretation that would prevent people from owning handguns. He likely got this interpretation from the writer Garry Wills who has made a good living attacking conservative ideals over the past couple of decades.

The reason for the language in the Second Amendment is that those at the time worked within an Anglo-American tradition that needed no explanation. Just as today, we would say "the dream of Dr. King" and no one would ask "what dream" or "who is Dr. King?" those of the 1790s were children of a centuries old tradition.

King Henry II helped to build this tradition with the Assize of Arms, requiring that every male citizen own some sort of weapon. Although Alfred the Great in his time had ordered the creation of a fyrd, or militia, Henry's assize was much more specific. This enabled him to get by without a standing army because all were required to help defend the realm. However, an armed citizenry meant that Henry also had to take steps to make sure those people were happy. He traveled his kingdom to make sure he was aware of the people's needs. Later it became more convenient for kings to call representatives to the capital. The partnership between ruler and ruled, cemented by an armed people, put England on the road towards democracy. A good government has nothing to fear from an armed population, but the armed population is the best insurance policy against tyranny. And don't bring up the argument about modern weapons. The experiences and/or writings of Giap, Che Guavara, Max Boot and others about guerilla warfare bely the notion that people with their own arms are powerless in modern warfare.

In the 1600s Britain knew tyranny from both power hungry kings and Oliver Cromell's dictatorship. The natural rights of life, liberty, and property were unsafe in the hands of such a government. By the 1700s British Whigs spoke openly about the need for an armed population to protect itself from tyranny. Our forefathers, according to noted American historian Bernard Bailyn, absorbed these principles like mother's milk. It was part of the justification for the Revolution itself. Meanwhile, the Indian chief King Phillip's war of genocide against New England spurred Americans on the frontier to understand that every good citizen must be armed to defend his community. Add to these historical antecedents the natural right of people to protect themselves and their property and you have the Second Amendment.

But let's imagine for a second that guns would magically vanish. Would we be safer? Maybe the strongest of us would be. I am 6'2, 250, and fairly young. I could handle a baseball bat pretty well to defend myself and my property. What if I were elderly and frail? My grandmother until she died at age eighty kept a handgun under her bed. Her husband who died in 1973 taught her how to use it and she kept it for security. She lived far from possible police protection. If there were no guns, home invaders could easily have harmed her with bats or axes. The possibility of getting shot deters a lot of these predators. Who is anyone to deny the right of the elderly or the disabled to defend themselves? How about the young woman trying to break away from a much stronger and abusive man who has promised to kill her if she ever leaves? Who is anyone to take away her right to protect herself? The intruder will think twice before entering a home if there is a possibility of the resident shooting him or her to death.

The Second Amendment's guarantee of gun rights is meant to help assist in the national defense, give property owners the ability to defend themselves and their families, and insure against a tyrannical government. Thomas Jefferson, who has been described as James Madison's collaborator to the point that one historian claimed they by the early 1790s almost shared the same mind, described the Second Amendment as his favorite because it helped protect against tyranny. This gives an important clue as to the mindset of the author, James Madison. No one at that time would have fathomed that people's right to defend their persons with deadly force would ever be questioned. It would be like questioning your right to eat whatever you wanted.

The violent will be violent, governments at some point will seek too much authority, and at some point we will face a serious attack on our territory. The first measure taken to prepare any nation for dictatorship is the removal of the citizens' guns. We must never allow ourselves to be in that position as a nation or as individuals, vulnerable to whatever strong force seeks to violate us.

Guns Make Citizens

Last week I came home to find the Washington DC local news on. The local station was doing a story about a gun search. That's right. Without warrants, people's homes were being searched for guns that are currently illegal in Washington DC. Presumably this is because they fear that their law will be found in violation of the Second Amendment. Of course these are likely the homes of law abiding citizens because no one would just barge into a drug lord's home to demand guns. My daughter said that it sounded like something that the British might do shortly before the Revolution.

The first thing that dictatorships seize is people's guns. Other countries, such as Japan, hesitated to directly invade the US due to widespread gun ownership. Thomas Jefferson saw them as key to a free people protecting their freedoms from a tyrannical government. The right goes back to the Middle Ages when King Henry II of England required people to arm themselves to protect the nation. He as a result understood that he needed to be better acquainted with the people's needs and traveled widely to keep in touch with their wishes. Later kings found it more convenient to call assemblies later known as Parliamant into session. An armed population is one that the government goes to greater lengths to keep happy.

Certainly the biggest threat on the horizon, besides the current case before the US Supreme Court, is Barrack Obama. According to many, his actual views as he wrote in his book are far to the left of the mainstream. He is the stalking horse for George Soros and MoveOn.org who continue their quest to revolutionize the United States and transform it into something quite alien from the original dreams of the Founding Fathers. Their guiding star is not George Washington, but Karl Marx. Of course the people must be rendered impotent first.

The American definition of rights is freedoms granted by God or nature. The American definition of citizen describes a person who not only enjoys, but fights for these rights. Gun ownership ensures our rights now and forever, or at least until we elect governments that obliterate their enjoyment.

An Armed Population Is a Free Population

When approaching the next election, many Americans will make their decisions based in part upon which candidates will more soundly defend their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.

Opponents try to argue away the notion that an armed population is desirable or necessary in the modern age. An academic in the 1990s tried to argue that there was actually no tradition whatsoever of Americans or English adhering to such a belief. Attacks on gun ownership are attacks on freedom. If the Second Amendment can be subverted the rest can be as well. Additionally the Second Amendment guarantees that citizens can protect their own rights when it comes down to it. It is a check in the hands of the people on the power of the government. This was why Thomas Jefferson liked this amendment more than any other.

The Second Amendment did not just arise from nowhere. In 1181 Henry II legalized English traditions in the Assize of Arms. From the time of the early Middle Ages, English citizens maintained personal arms and served in a militia known as a fyrd. The king could call upon these men in times of severe danger. Henry II was an autocrat without a doubt, but did not interfere much in the liberties of his people. The Assize of Arms did not simply encourage, but demanded that men arm themselves. Few other kings have seen an armed population as anything but a threat, but Henry II and his successors had faith in the English people. Many of them also paid close attention to the issues and problems of their kingdom. Almost no European rulers at that time held so much concern. It could definitely be argued that the armed condition of the population encouraged the king to look more closely at the needs of the people.

The emergence of a tyrant in the 1600s, Charles I, convinced the people of England that they needed to be armed to fight their own government when necessary. Charles I proved that even a British king can overstep his bounds. When he did so, the people needed to bring their government back in line. American colonists in the 1700s combined this idea with the fact that frontiersmen needed to be armed in case of Indian or French attack.

Second Amendment rights go beyond the need for property protection or national defense. The right to keep and bear arms reflects the relationship between the government and the governed. A government that promotes liberty and property rights need not fear an armed population. When the government decides that natural rights must be systematically violated and that arms must be taken away, it is saying that it fears the people and their freedom of action. The taking away of arms almost always precedes a dictatorship that abuses the people.

The Founding Fathers emphasized the right of a population to remain armed because it reminds the government of where sovereignty actually lies.

The Winds of Change?

In the early years of national independence Thomas Jefferson wrote a comprehensive survey of his state, the famous Notes on Virginia. When speaking of the western section of Virginia, Jefferson lists a number of resources such as coal. This book was published to advertise the strong character of the people and the variety of natural resources that the state had to offer. However, I doubt that Jefferson ever considered wind as a natural resource to cultivate.

Some environmentalists have told the public for years that tremendous potential exists in the power generation of wind farms. Others protest that wind farms harm the environment. Walter Cronkite and Ted Kennedy, no friends of coal or any other supplier of power, successfully prevented construction of wind farms off of Martha’s Vineyard for aesthetic reasons alone. Some argue that birds flying into the blades and shortening their lives provides a compelling reason to not construct these farms (don’t they also fly into cars, windows of buildings, and other immovable objects?)

Only one reason alone exists to build or to not build, long term viability. Can these energy sources become profitable in the long term without government support? Governor Manchin signed a bill into law recently that raises the property tax rate on wind farms from the salvage rate to the regular rate. Although this removes an incentive to construct these projects, it does give county governments a reason to try to attract them. Manchin also opened the door for wind farm operators to earn tax credits with local investment.

Will wind power displace coal as the source of energy that keeps the lights on? Not a chance. However it creates investment opportunities on land that otherwise may not be developed, helping the local tax base. It also creates a few good paying jobs while increasing West Virginia’s most profitable (legal) export, electric power. Strangely enough, the wind farm that operates now in Tucker County has proven to be a tourist attraction of sorts. You can actually see people, even in busses, stop to get their pictures taken beside the gigantic wind harnessing machines. It makes you wonder if the Dutch that built those windmills so long ago saw them as beautiful or interesting features on the landscape. If these farms can generate profits as well as power, they will create an innovative and environmentally friendly source of wealth for the state and its people.