31 January 2013

Next Book Announcements Coming Soon . . .


It will be another title from the History Press and part of their Sesquicentennial series . . . 


Civil War Sesquicentennial

This series honors the 150th anniversary of the War Between the States. Each book is a concise illustrated history of an epic battle, a critical turning point, a pivotal campaign or a hallowed location. Authors are respected Civil War scholars who condense their research into accessible volumes of 40,000 to 50,000 words and 60 to 70 images. Successful subjects have on-site visitor centers with retail operations that support the books.

I'll announce the subject matter of the book in a day or two. In addition to that book, I have something else I've almost completed that I'm submitting to another publisher, also Civil War related. I've been working on that, on and off, for several years. More to come on that too.





30 January 2013

29 January 2013

Academia Forces Students To Be Indoctrinated


Loyola is the same university that banned Karl Rove from speaking on campus in 2010, later relenting after months of controversy. The same university sanctioned the extremist and, according to the East Bay Express, a self-proclaimed communist, Van Jones as a keynote speaker—and promote the event on the university’s website. Even more astounding is that a professor would compel students to attend an event where such radical philosophies were being promoted.

But, hey, don't worry. It's just more anecdotal evidence of academia's radicalism and indoctrination of students. And, as one noted Civil War college professor always reminds us, this type of thing rarely makes it into the classroom. Silly you.

More here.

28 January 2013

New Book

 
As I noted earlier, I've started on a new book since completing the Lexington and the Civil War for the History Press. I hope to have some news on the next book later this week. This is a bit unusual after just completing one book (at least for me), but this next book is timed to an event in the Sesquicentennial and I wanted to get right on it  - that's all I'm going to say for now. 

I'm also working on a redesign of my blog. After chatting with a couple of "experts" they recommended staying with Blogger, which surprised me a little bit. But that's what I'm going to do. I actually fooled around some with Wordpress, but didn't care for it, even though I know that's what a lot of history bloggers use. 

Stay tuned . . .

Changes Coming To OVB


As I update my blog's layout and look you may, from time to time, notice some changes over the course of the next few days. I'm working with two designers to make it a bit more user-friendly, eye-appealing, and interesting.

You Have A Duty To Protect Yourself

27 January 2013

Inaugural Prayer Breakfast - Quoting Lincoln


A great sermon by Rabbi Jonathan Kahn. I believe this was the keynote. I kinda doubt he gets a repeat. Kahn affirms the Judeo-Christian foundations of our republic. Good stuff. He sounds like a Baptist preacher. Amazing. What say the naysayers?



By the way, Glenn Beck is a fan of Rabbi Kahn:

26 January 2013

Communist Party Cheers Administration's Gun Control Efforts


An excellent article on the current debate . . . here are just a few excerpts: 

Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.
And . . .
 
The Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned good—that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions. [Wow, is that accurate, or what?]
And . . .

The police do not exist to protect the individual. They exist to cordon off the crime scene and attempt to apprehend the criminal. We individuals are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to self-defense. This right is not the Government’s to “award” us. They have never been granted it.
The so-called assault weapons ban is a hoax. It is a political appeal to the ignorant. The guns it supposedly banned have been illegal (as above) for 78 years. Did the ban make them “more” illegal? The ban addresses only the appearance of weapons, not their operation.
And . . .

President Obama seems to understand the Constitution as a “set of suggestions.” I cannot endorse his performance in office, but he wins my respect for taking those steps he deems necessary to ensure the safety of his family. Why would he want to prohibit me from doing the same?

Of course, we all know that the left really isn't looking for solutions. They just want to demagogue this issue. As is so often the case with utopians, they ignore facts. More here, at The Daily Beast. But communists everywhere prefer this perspective. Yeah, they've got a great track record, don't they? I prefer the Founders' way to hucksters and commies:

25 January 2013

Lexington & The Civil War - Cover First Look


Covers are tricky things when it comes to books. We all have different tastes. Overall, I think the industry has come a LONG way in recent years in making covers eye-appealing and the History Press is, in my opinion, one of the best when designing covers for their books. Though this cover isn't exactly what I had in mind, I'm happy with it. I'm less picky than I used to be. So, what do you think? Chime in - good or bad. 

Shortly before the book is published, I'll post some introductory comments about some of what's in it and the purpose of the book. At that point, I'll also reveal the "mystery historian" who contributed an essay about a particular subject involving the WBTS and Lexington. That should raise a few eyebrows. ;-) Book video coming soon as well. In the meantime, feel free to post or email me any questions about it. 

And, just to keep me "in the saddle", I submitted another book proposal today to a publisher. This is one I've been wanting to write for some time. More to come once I get the green light - assuming I get the green light.

23 January 2013

Lexington Book - Almost There


Well, I'm excited that I've finally finished writing the book, Lexington and the Civil War. I've  reviewed the manuscript edit I received back from my copy editor at the History Press, made some changes and corrections and, early this morning, sent those back to be proofed. The only things left to do are to receive the proofed pages back, review for spelling errors, etc. and suggest any changes and also review the cover and approve and/or suggest changes.

The image shown here, in some ways, represents the contents of the book: old to new. I discuss both the history of the war's impact on Lexington - including some of the events leading up to it - as well as the enduring legacy it still holds on this beautiful "Athens of the South." The pen was my great-grandmother's. The flash drive was given to me (I reimbursed them) by someone who helped with some research and who is associated with the Leyburn Library and W& L. The whole book - documents, images, notes, etc., is on this W&L flash drive - quite appropriate, don't you think? Its also on my PC hard drive. After a virus and crash corrupted most of the original book files and I had to start over, I made sure I was backed up in spades this time.

And, I'll have an exciting announcement to make about the book shortly before its release in early March. I've been blessed by having another author (and real historian) make a significant contribution to the book. He's also very excited about what he's contributed. I think some folks are going to be surprised. I'll announce that surprise author when I release the updated marketing *video I'm working on now. Stay tuned.

I'm going to take a break, but I've already begun gathering research material for my next book. Its one I've wanted to write for some time. 

*This first video was something I put together quickly. The next one will be much more detailed.

22 January 2013

If An Academic Historian Says It, Its Not Policital - If Someone Else Says It, It Is


I could not have manufactured a clearer illustration of the doublespeak among some academic historians than what I witnessed here. Simpson exposes some nonsense, but then others defend the identical type of analysis coming from an academic historian. Perfect. I'll expound more in an upcoming post.

When Will Academics Take Up This Civil Rights Cause?


Today marks the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. To mark this solemn day, I offer the following . . . 


"Not only does this young generation of pro-life women shun the notion that abortion somehow liberates women; it views abortion as the civil-and human-rights cause of our day. Abortion is an injustice that permeates our society. Forty years after Roe v. Wade, we realize that a third of our peers are not here to share our progress and our hopes. It is our loss as well as theirs." ~ Excerpted from Time magazine's most recent issue. [All emphasis mine.]

Frankly, I don't believe they ever will. It doesn't fit their political agenda. While a number of academic bloggers, particularly those blogging about history and social issues, constantly moralize about American's original sin - slavery (even though slavery has been over with for 150 years and even it's bigoted aftermath is all but done), they are strangely quiet about the epic civil rights issue of our own day and the one right before our very eyes. As a matter of fact, many of these  same folks embrace an ideology which celebrates the death of the unborn - almost to the point of considering it a sacrament. Am I the only one that sees the irony, the rank hypocrisy?

And they don't seem to have any concern that abortions are, proportionally, much more common in the black community - many of these babies being the descendants of slaves.




Where's the outrage over these who so often and rightfully cry out over civil rights abuses? Their silence is deafening. This is but one of the many reasons it is difficult for me to take many academics seriously. They pontificate about the evils of slavery as if it still exists in America, yet ignore the wanton destruction of life that occurs on a daily basis in the very communities in which they live.  

Kay James, who I've had the pleasure of meeting, puts the issue this way:

"The right to life is the most fundamental of all civil rights. While the right to education, healthcare, housing, or employment are important, they pale in existence to the right to live, walk, and love among us. We must stop abortion to protect the right to life for preborn children.” ~ Kay James, Founder, Black Americans for Life

When will academia join the fight in defense of the very weakest among us? These people will argue ad nauseam about all the "rights" mentioned above, except one. Why? When will they embrace this civil right? 

Don't hold your breath.


Fortunately, at least on this front of the culture war, it appears their ideology is losing this issue - big time. And for that, many unborn will one day be very grateful.

You can read more about this article here.

21 January 2013

Some School Lessons For The Hysterical Anti-Gunners

Take 7 minutes to watch this and you'll know more about semi-automatic so-called "assault rifles" than 95% of Americans. You'll also realize, if you're open-minded, that much of what is being said about guns by the anti-gunners is pure fantasy.

Today At The Stonewall Jackson House

 
In Lexington, Virginia:
Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson's Birthday

Monday, January 21, 2013
10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
The Jackson House will be open January 21, 2013 in honor of Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson's 189th Birthday. FREE tours will be given on the hour and half hour with the last tour at 3:30 p.m. Birthday cake and cider will be served next door in the Davidson-Tucker house.

20 January 2013

Did Martin Luther King Support Gun Rights?


Well, it's a bit complicated. You judge:


Amid the clamor for new gun laws, its appropriate to remember King's complicated history with guns. Most people think King would be the last person to own a gun. Yet in the mid-1950s, as the civil rights movement heated up, King kept firearms for self-protection. In fact, he even applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. A recipient of constant death threats, King had armed supporters take turns guarding his home and family. He had good reason to fear that the Klan in Alabama was targeting him for assassination. William Worthy, a journalist who covered the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, reported that once, during a visit to King's parsonage, he went to sit down on an armchair in the living room and, to his surprise, almost sat on a loaded gun. Glenn Smiley, an adviser to King, described King's home as "an arsenal." ~ Adam Winkler
Compare that, with this:

There is something incredibly disturbing behind the assumption that Martin Luther King, who gave his life advocating for peace and non-violence, would support something called Gun Appreciation Day.  ~ Kevin Levin

The history of gun control, the NRA, and who has supported and opposed various attempts to gut the 2nd amendment is a bit more complicated than so-called experts are claiming. The only constant in the debate is the 2nd amendment - the original words are still intact, as is their meaning. And, for that, we can all be thankful; regardless of what our skin color is.

And just one more thing, could we please stop with the "deer-hunting" mantra over the 2nd amendment? You make yourself look really stupid. Any 8th-grader can figure out pretty quickly that that was NOT what the 2nd amendment was written for. As the SCOTUS held in Heller:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

That's from the highest court in the land. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. 'Nuff said?


19 January 2013

Front Porch Pickin' #30 - Bright Sunny South


For your Saturday evening enjoyment . . . our 30th Front Porch Pickin' music post featuring the best in Southern Appalachian bluegrass, folk, & country tunes. Another great song by Alison Krauss with a Civil War theme about a Southern boy leaving home to fight for the Confederacy. Now, enjoy the concert, but don't stay up too late - ya know ya gotta get up and go to church in the mornin'. And, as always, get your culture here . . .


Recommended Blog Site: Real Southern Men


I may have mentioned these folks before, but just in case you missed it, this is a great Southern blog:

http://realsouthernmen.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/rsm_header3.png


Happy Birthday General Lee

 


The following is taken from Stratford Hall's Website:

Robert E. Lee’s birthday may not be an official public holiday in other states, but there are many people who remember his life and achievements on either the third Monday of January or on January 19, which is his actual birthday. Lee-Jackson Day is a state holiday in Virginia on the Friday before Martin Luther King Day to honor both Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. Robert E. Lee is also remembered as part of Confederate Memorial Day, also known as Confederate Heroes Day, which falls in different times of the year, depending on the states.


Robert E. Lee was a commander of the Confederate army during the American Civil War (1861–1865). He was born at Stratford, Virginia, on January 19, 1807. His father, known as “Light Horse Harry" Lee, was a Revolutionary War hero. Robert E. Lee graduated second in his class at West Point, earning no demerits for discipline infractions during his years there.


Robert E. Lee’s first military action after graduation from West Point was in 1845, in the war with Mexico. He met and worked with later key players in the Civil War, including James Longstreet, Ulysses S. Grant, George Pickett and Thomas J. Jackson. Lee worked as an army engineer prior to the Civil War. He helped build the waterfront in St Louis and coastal forts in Savannah and Brunswick, Georgia. He was appointed superintendent of West Point in 1852 and is considered one of the best superintendents in the institution's history. Abraham Lincoln offered Robert E. Lee command of the Union Army in 1861, but Lee refused. He would not raise arms against his native state, Virginia. Lee resigned his commission and headed home to Virginia. Lee served as adviser to Confederate leader Jefferson Davis, and then commanded the Army of Northern Virginia. After four years of grueling warfare, Robert E. Lee met Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox, Virginia, where both generals ended their battles. Lee surrendered his army and told his comrades, “Go home and be good Americans.”


Lee was appointed President of Washington College in Lexington, Virginia, in 1865. The school was later renamed to include his name in honor of his leadership there. Lee died at Washington College on October 12, 1870, and was buried in a chapel on the school grounds.



18 January 2013

Teaching Future History Professors & Bloggers



A school district in Wisconsin said they will review a high school diversity class that exposed students to radical leftist thinkers and promoted a critical race theory that alleges white people are oppressors.
 “They’re teaching white guilt,” one parent told Fox News. “They’re dividing the students. They’re saying to non-whites, ‘You have been oppressed and you’re still being oppressed.’”
“I felt it was indoctrination,” she said. “This is a radical left agenda and ideology that is now embedded in our school.”
So what's the big deal? Isn't that the common thread among Civil War and American History Professors and historians? Isn't that the common thread with a lot of history blogs? Isn't that the theme of many Progressives in government and the media? Of course it is, despite what the flat-earthers in academia claim. Some of them used to have the courage to come here and deny it, but now . . . not  so much. However, if you embrace it, you're sure to get better gigs as a "historian." 

How sad that tax dollars are spent for this type of garbage. And how sad that children are taught such divisive, agenda-driven subjects. You will not see the typical hand-wringing from educators in the blogosphere over this agenda-driven, politicized curriculum. I wonder why.

More here.

Overcoming Southern Culture


I guess Mr. Rangel wants all of us to become tax cheats like him. If I were Rangel, I'd spend my time overcoming an accent that sounds a lot like a mobster. Oh yeah, and paying a little closer to the tax code - that he wrote. Hey Chuck, I'll keep my Southern culture, you keep your morals. What a funny man.




And, on a side note, I've noticed how several notable Civil War blogs like to accuse certain folks in the Southern heritage crowd of fabricating and encouraging a "divide" between North and South regarding history and the culture wars. Yet it is their side of the political spectrum that is constantly South bashing and inflaming this divide. These folks just can't seem to get either history or current events right. Are they misinformed or are they simply lying?

A related article about this war on certain aspects of Southern culture can be found in a piece at today's American Thinker site. Here's an excerpt which reflects this:

Consider the extent to which the federal government has gone, during the past four years, to brand conservatives, Christians, defenders of the Constitution, gun owners, and in general believers in property rights, as not merely racist and stupid (the usual mantra), but rather as angry, "bitter," and positively unhinged.

This is why they also want to trash the constitution and why gullible history bloggers open wide and swallow
. Though the AT piece doesn't mention the South specifically, we all know that is the region where most of these beliefs are the strongest. Don't be fooled by progressive historians who accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of - it's a common tactic of frauds.

However, in a good-natured push back to the corrupt elitists in New York who wish to punish law-abiding citizens, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has sent a message to those same law-abiding gun-owners:


Texas is better than New York, and New York just gave us another excuse to say that.
And, you gotta love this:

Abbott, a possible candidate for governor of Texas in next year's election, used campaign money to buy ads on websites of news organizations in New York City and Albany. One ad says in classic Western script: "WANTED: Law abiding New York gun owners seeking lower taxes and greater opportunities."

So, if our yankee friends take Abbott up on his offer (and I hope they do), that will leave only the non-law-abiding in New York. You know, politicians like Charlie Rangel.



Lee-Jackson Day In The Commonwealth Of Virginia


WHEREAS,  Generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson are native Virginians, having served our great nation and Commonwealth as educators, leaders, and military strategists; and
WHEREAS,  Lee served in the United States Army for more than three decades until he left his position to serve as Commander in Chief of Virginia's military forces and as Commander of the Army of Northern Virginia; and
WHEREAS,  Jackson served  in the United States Army from 1846 to 1851 before accepting the newly created position of Professor of Natural and Experimental Philosophy and Instructor of Artillery at Virginia Military Institute, a position he held until joining the Confederate war effort in 1861; and
WHEREAS,  Lee dedicated his life after the Civil War to reforming higher education in the South by serving as President of Washington College, now Washington & Lee University, in Lexington, Virginia, where he helped to greatly increase the school's funding and expand the curriculum to create an atmosphere most conducive to learning for young men of both Southern and Northern heritage; and
WHEREAS,  Jackson's leadership and bravery enabled him to rally his troops to several improbable victories against numerically superior forces, and Jackson's inspired "Stonewall Brigade" fought alongside General Lee's troops in another victory, even after their leader was fatally wounded on the second day of the Battle of Chancellorsville; and
WHEREAS,  it is fitting to recognize Generals Lee and Jackson as two of our nation's most notable military strategists, as beloved leaders among their troops, as pioneers in the field of higher education, and as faithful and dedicated Virginians;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Robert F. McDonnell, do hereby recognize January 18, 2013 as LEE-JACKSON DAY in our COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.

King George, III - Been There, Done That

17 January 2013

More Reasons To Support The 2nd Amendment


Yet another brilliant Williams man.



I hope no one gets the idea that I'm advocating violence. Quite the opposite. Though I've been around them all my life and own quite a few, I don't particularly like firearms. I respect them, but I also have a healthy "fear" of them. I see them as a necessary tool. Guns, in the hands of the law-abiding, prevent violence. That is one of the primary reasons for the 2nd amendment.

16 January 2013

January 16 - Religious Freedom Day: Does Anyone Care?


As a 9th generation great-grandson of Roger Williams, I do. Though Roger Williams is considered the father of religious freedom in America, that liberty also has very deep roots in Virginia:

January 16th is observed as Religious Freedom Day in America. On this day in 1786, the General Assembly in Richmond passed the sweeping Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. First proposed by Thomas Jefferson in 1779, it was Jefferson 's most loyal lieutenant, James Madison, who shepherded this vital measure through the lawmaking process.

But some believe this liberty is threatened. More here.

Dr. Walter Williams On The 2nd Amendment

Walter Williams is a respected economist, academic, and former department chair at George Mason University. Another brilliant Williams man.

14 January 2013

I Can Beat You Up, So I'm Right


I certainly do not advocate secession. I would much prefer to see our country revert to the intent of the framers regarding federalism and, though united, allow the states more autonomy in governance, but that's another topic for another day. Yet, recent headlines on the Drudge Report should give Americans reason to pause:

Hannity Foresees Possibility of States Leaving the Union

Patriotic Group Building Armed Neighborhood Fortress

Wyoming Seeks To Nullify Any Federal Gun Laws

Kevin Levin recently made some comments at Civil War Memory on the secession petition to the White House. Kevin kinda gets a hoot out of all them thar red-state rednecks catchin' secesh fever and petitionin' the White House. It is funny, I have to admit. This administration bypasses Congress - does anyone really think they'd pay any attention to citizens' petitions? That is funny. 

However, when looking at the turmoil in recent decades - the Middle East, the Old Soviet Union, etc. - it's a bit naive and Pollyanna-like to think that the possibility of a break up of the United States doesn't at least exist. You'd have to be wearing blinders to believe that. I have children and grandchildren and the possibility, along with all that it could entail, concerns me.

But, the truth is, more often than not, it's the left that threatens and endorses secession. Facts are stubborn things. But regarding Kevin's point about the court case of Texas v. White; not everyone thinks it's quite as cut and dry as he does. An attorney recently reviewed that case and gave a clear explanation as to why that particular court decision is not, legally speaking, the final word on secession. Beyond the flawed legal reasoning (the case was about bonds, not secession), to suggest that an 1869 Supreme Court case is the final word on any matter is absurd on it's face. Frankly, it's laughable. (In reality, is there ever a final word on any legal issue anyway? No. The courts are constantly overturning themselves and setting new precedents.)

Here's just a few lines from this attorney's summation regarding the facts surrounding that 1869 court decision:


Texas v. White is often cited as a case which definitively and directly ruled on Texas' right to secede. That is not the case. Texas v. White was a case about government bonds.

In summary, Texas v. White, even if given the utmost respect, and considered binding precedent, does not stand for the proposition that no state may ever break its bonds with the Federal Government of the United States. At the same time, if it is considered the final word on the Federal Government's right to prohibit a state from seceding, then that right is far from established. 
Unless you're prefer fantasy over facts, I'd recommend reading the whole article. It's quite interesting. Kevin also posted some comments congratulating his political team for their response to all the secession talk and the related petition to the White House. He considers some political hack's inaccurate statements about the Civil War a "wonderful job."

. . . more than 600,000 Americans died in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States. [Emphasis mine.]
How anyone could get the idea that war ever "vindicates" any principle is beyond me. That's one of the most ignorant and/or misleading statements I've ever read. The victor in a war simply means they were better able to kill their enemy and destroy their assets than was their opponent - period. If two men disagree over some item in a contract and they decide to address the argument in the boxing ring, does who wins "vindicate" the position over which they were disagreeing? Of course not. War does not vindicate a principle. Principles are vindicated by truth, logic, fact, and, ultimately, God. Applying the White House's logic would mean that if a 250 pound man beats and robs a 125 pound man, then his "victory" vindicates the principle that he has the right to beat and rob. Once again, that's absurd on its face, as is the tortured reasoning and logic of political commentary posing as history. But it does make for affirmative head-nodding for the low-information crowd. 

Metal Detecting Post #94 - Diggin' The Low Country Of SC

11 January 2013

Another Educator Shows His "Colors"


This is becoming epidemic, isn't it? Thank God gaia the teacher wasn't using any of David Barton's material.

A South Carolina teacher has been suspended after he allegedly threw the American flag on the ground and stomped on it in front of his honors English class. He reportedly told students the flag was “only a piece of cloth” and didn’t “mean anything.”
Of course, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. This is what happens when the "enemies of American Exceptionalism" control parts of our educational system. And, let's not forget - the Constitution doesn't "mean anything" anymore either. Stomping on the American flag in front of high school students, really?

  wistv.com - Columbia, South Carolina |

It's Not About Diveristy, It's About Ideology


Of course, most of us already knew that anyway.

MSNBC host and commentator Melissa Harris Perry surprisingly defended the lack of diversity in President Obama's second term cabinet in an appearance on the network this morning. Harris Perry says just because someone is of one gender and not the other or has a certain skin color doesn't mean they are representative of that specific group. Harris Perry cites Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as an example, who she says doesn't represent "the vast majority" of African-Americans.
MSNBC host and commentator Melissa Harris Perry says we should "be careful" when it comes to calling out the hypocrisy of President Obama for having a not so diverse cabinet. Perry says we don't want to "assume that any given physical body carries with it a set of political ideas."

More here.

The same is true in academia, which is why they discriminate against conservatives. You see, discrimination is really okay in their world, as long as they're the ones doing it. They don't really care about minorities or "diversity" - they want adherence to leftist dogma and ideology. Again, this is nothing new, they're just being more open about their extremist views now - in everything from doing away with the U.S. Constitution, to inalienable gun rights, to their lover affair with socialism. They're really into the whole "fundamentally transforming America" thing. It's cool. It's hip. It's sssoooo progressive, man. Those academics who used to come here and deny all this are also showing us something. Either they know they can't deny it any longer or, they're embarassed. Actually, probably some of both. 

I told you so. I win.

09 January 2013

Lexington Book Update



I am currently working hard to finish some final edits for a deadline on the Lexington book. After a major virus and PC crash, I pretty much had to rewrite much of the book over from scratch. The original publication date was to be last year. The History Press has been very patient and understanding. So far, they've been great to work with. The working title is Lexington in The Civil War. Also, the book will have a surprise contribution by another author, who also happens to be a good historian. The tentative release date is March of this year.

While the book will not break any new ground, I trust it will make a good resource for those looking for some basic Civil War history surrounding Lexington. I did come across a few "nuggets" that I don't think have ever been published elsewhere in a book and which will add to the final product's value.

 

Obama's War On Women


Just sayin' . . . 

In an Oval Office meeting on Dec. 29, 10 of President Obama’s top economic advisers stood before him discussing the heated fiscal negotiations. Every one was a man . . . male appointees under Mr. Obama outnumbered female appointees at 11 of the 15 federal departments, for instance. It occurred at all levels of government service, from the highest-level advisers on down. In some cases, the skew was also deep. At the Departments of Justice, Defense, Veterans Affairs and Energy, male appointees outnumbered female appointees by about two to one.

Let' see, what was that the President was saying about "sister fought against sister?" Maybe that should be "Obama fought against the sister(s)." Story here.

06 January 2013

Front Porch Pickin' # 29 - Carry Me Back To Virginia


For our repertoire this evening, and for your listening enjoyment, I've invited the legendary Old Crow Medicine Show boys to perform for us. They're a Shenandoah Valley original. When I first heard this little ditty, I thought for sure I'd died and gone to glory. In a recent interview, the fiddle player and lead singer, Ketch (Don't ya love that name?) Secor said the following about his view of music:

Yeah I'm still as fascinated in the early days of the forces that make up the American culture we know today. I'm interested in the primitive roots of it all. I like to trace the music back to a bygone area. It just fascinates me for a personal pleasure, I just really like knowing. I'm into regionalism in music. I like to know the origins of music, where a song comes from. I love to trace a song back. I love topical songs. I like a song about a murder that happened three counties over and I'd like to sing it right in the town where it happened. I feel that music has a powerful force, that by singing these old songs you can connect with an older way of living that, though it isn't really lived on the surface, the trees know it and the soil knows it and the rivers know it, and it's possibly more American than what is on the surface.
Wiser words I never heard spoken anywhere. Listen carefully to the words of the song and, as always, get your culture here.



Here are the lyrics: 

"Carry Me Back"
 
[Verse 1:]
Well I come from the valley, I'm a rebel boy.
Born on the banks of the Shenandoah.
In '61, I went to the war,
To win one for Virginia!
Ya my brother went first and they called me to.
I was green as clover in the morning dew.
So I marched to the drum and I sang to the tune.
Carry me back to Virginia!

[Bridge 1:]
Fire in the cannon, water in the well,
Raced through the valley with a rebel yell.
I learned right quick how to march like hell and affix that bayonet.

[Chorus:]
Wont ya carry me back?
Wont ya carry me back?
Carry me back to Virginia.

[Verse 2:]
With a sword and a saddle,
Powder in the gun.
We thought for a minute our fight was done.
So they lined us up to the metals arm,
And hammered us into the quicksand.
Then they burned that valley in a blaze of fire,
Cut through the lands like a red hot iron.
Til the men took cover where the horses piled,
Then we shivered and then hold against them.

[Bridge 2:]
But the war raged on like flames of hell,
We dug through the pockets of the ones who fell,
Dressed in rags and we ate that grass
When they cut off our legs we cried!

[Chorus:]
Wont ya carry me back?
Wont ya carry me back?
Carry me back to Virginia.
Wont ya carry me back?
Wont ya carry me back?
Carry me back to Virginia.

[Verse 3:]
And they died in the valley,
Died in the swamp,
On the banks of the river where the whitetail jumped.
Died in the ditches,
Died in the fields,
In the belly of a wagon for a womans to heal
Died in the war,
Starved in the camps.
Locked in the prisons of a meaner man.
Spilled our blood in the fight to defend
And to bury the tome of a-dixieland!

[Bridge 3:]
Down in Alabama,
Down in Caroline,
Way down in Gerogie, on the Tennesee line.
We fought for the rebels, and Robert E. Lee,
Now we want to go home to Virginia.
Say we want to go home to Virginia!

[Chorus:]
Wont ya carry me back?
Wont ya carry me back?
Carry me back to Virginia.
Wont ya carry me back?
Wont ya carry me back?
I wanna be buried in Virginia! 
 
 

04 January 2013

03 January 2013

A Marine Speaks


Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime.
You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012

Story here. The Marine's words kinda reminds me of Patrick Henry. Feinstein reminds me of King George, but not as good-lookin'. Well, I did my part to support the Constitution and get our economy moving. Since today's my birthday, I went out and exercised one of my inalienable rights and purchased myself a birthday present: a semi-automatic, 9mm, Glock 26.

Proclaiming Their Pure Hypocrisy Means No Credibility


Update: Thanks to the reader who pointed out that President Obama has added a new dimension to the Civil War - It's no longer just "brother against brother", it's now "sister fought against sister." Hmmm ... I missed that. What were the name of those units? These people are so obsessed with political correctness, they'll sacrifice their own credibility. George Orwell was a prophet. This is alternate universe stuff. Notice none of the academics who demand "accurate history" uttered a peep. Of course not - they're both pushing the same agenda. They think this is good history. Hilarious.

End of update.

The President of the United States recently issued a proclamation commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. I believe it was the proper thing to do. But isn't it interesting that all of the academic historians, politicians, and talking heads that went ballistic over Governor McDonnell's Confederate History Month proclamation (because it left out ALL the history related to the Confederacy ) a couple of years ago, are now silent over this Presidential Proclamation--even though it too leaves out ALL the history related to Lincoln and the EP's dubious history.

I've commented on this hypocrisy before. (See here.) Again, I don't object to the Lincoln proclamations nor the Confederate History proclamations. Moreover, I don't think it's necessary to divulge whatever moral failings we perceive through our 21st century lenses in these proclamations. They're not the proper venue. Do that in a book, in an article, in a blog post. Proclamations are for a different purpose.

What I do object to, however, is the double standard of these hypocrite academics and politicians who embrace these politically motivated and/or politically correct double standards. Keep it up - you only hurt your own credibility.

Your peers will applaud you. 100 years from now, posterity will laugh at you.

Progressives Prefer Al-Jazeera Over Glenn Beck


Every once in a while a tweet appears that's so silly, it must be a joke. Like this one from Glenn Beck: "Before Al-Jazeera bought Current TV, TheBlaze looked into buying it but we were rejected by progressive owners." Guess what? He's totally serious. The Wall Street Journal caught the detail in its coverage: "Glenn Beck's The Blaze approached Current about buying the channel last year, but was told that 'the legacy of who the network goes to is important to us and we are sensitive to networks not aligned with our point of view,' according to a person familiar with the negotiations."

Source.

Wow. At least we know where the Progressives stand. And don't forget, a lot of academic historians identify as Progressives. Probably a good idea to keep that in mind when reading their work. 

Oh, and there's this part of the story we want to be sure everyone sees:

Mr. Gore and his partners were eager to complete the deal by Dec. 31, lest it be subject to higher tax rates that took effect on Jan. 1, according to several people . . .
 Frauds.

Two Answers To Violence


And neither one are gun control. Chicago vs. Aurora - two cities in contrast. The two answers are:

  1. Involving youth in positive, traditionalist, pro-American organizations like the Junior ROTC.
  2. Prayer & Christian activism.

You'll notice that neither solutions are acceptable to Progressives, though both work. Progressives prefer failed policies like restricting the gun rights of law-abiding citizens. And remember, these are the "enlightened" ones among us. In reality, they're unable to process facts. They prefer ideology to reality, which is why all their programs are epic fails. 

 As one reader commented:

Aurora - locks up criminals and has 0 murders. Chicago outlaws guns and let's criminals run rampant and has over 580 murders. Go figure.

Yeah, go figure. Story here.


02 January 2013

Defending The Constitution - It's My Sworn Duty


Update:

Though I have my issues with Speaker Boehner, I thought his comments today were providential, given the topic of this post thus, I pass them along:

The way our founders envisioned it, the republic would be led by citizens who recognize that the blessing of governing ourselves requires that we give something of ourselves.  Everything depended on this.  So they made each other – and their successors – swear an oath of allegiance.

In a few moments, I will take this oath for the twelfth time as representative of the Eighth District of Ohio.  It is word for word the same oath we all take.
Note that it makes no mention of party, faction, or title … contains no reference to agendas or platforms – only to the Constitution.

The one addition we dare to make, as George Washington did at the first inaugural, is to invoke the assistance of our Heavenly Father.
End of update.

Update #2:

The memo's gone out. Tonight, on my local PBS station:

Questioning the Constitution

 
An examination of the Constitution, including its development and structure, various interpretations and whether it needs to be revised. Included: remarks from constitutional scholars, politicians and others.
Thursday, January 3 -- 10:00pm 
  
This is part of the "echo chamber":



A report by the Media Consortium detailed how progressives had created an ''echo chamber'' of outlets ''in which a message pushes the larger public or the mainstream media to acknowledge, respond, and give airtime to progressive ideas because it is repeated many times.'' According to the report called ''The Big Thaw,'' ''if done well, the message within the echo chamber can become the accepted meme, impact political dynamics, shift public opinion and change public policy.''

Parts of the echo chamber are willing participants, others are simply useful idiots.

End of Update #2.

Update #3:

Aubrecht walks it back, kinda. Of course, his update makes absolutely no sense. Sounds to me like he's saying, "don't trash the Constitution, just ignore it". Oh, wait, that does make perfect sense to a Progressive. In making laws and deciding constitutionality, what other option than original intent makes sense? If someone can write a law, and then "interpret" it to their own liking while ignoring the intent of the law, what's the point in having written law anyway. Devoid of all logic.

End of Update #3.

Blogger Michael Aubrecht has linked to another pointy-headed academic trashing the Constitution. This is the same blogger who found something to admire in the Occupy Wall Street movement and continually trashed the Tea Party. And this is the same Constitution my ancestors fought to establish and to maintain - from the Revolutionary War to WWII - my forefathers shed blood to uphold it and protect our liberties. Some didn't make it back home. Others suffered physical and emotional scars for the rest of their lives. I really don't take lightly some know-nothings treating it so cheaply. It's not at all funny and it's not at all "enlightened." I'm shaking with anger as I write this. Such ungratefulness infuriates me. 

This academic would want his name mentioned, so I won't. You can find the article if you search for it, or go to Aubrecht's blog. I couldn't stomach much of the article. You don't have to take more than one bite of putrid garbage to realize what you're eating:
 
observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken, but almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution.


Really? And just who are these mysterious "observers?" Space aliens? The Progressives, statists, and lefties are really feeling their oats, arent' they? More and more of these types are becoming rather vocal about trashing the Constitution. It's such an impediment to these control freaks getting complete control over the populace and "transforming" America into their little socialist utopia. Perhaps Cuba or China or Iran would be more to their liking. 

Or, perhaps we could experiment with repealing the Constitution. Yeah, let's try that. We could start slow. For instance, we could start by taking away the first amendment rights of college professors. If that works out, then we can move right along. Here's another idea. Let's have a debate. We take 50 U.S. Marines with 20 years in the Corps and 100 (just to make it fair) tenured Progressive academics and lock them in a room for 24 hours. First, the Constitution haters present their case. Then the marines. Last one standing wins. Oh yeah, pay per view. I'm in.

And self-proclaimed historians are lapping this crap up. It's embarrassing.

Let's see, perverting the commerce clause, inventing rights that aren't in the Constitution and ignoring the ones that are, bypassing the Congress, issuing thousands of regulations a year which no one even knows exists, forcing Americans to buy one thing (health insurance), while telling them they can't buy a 24 oz coke - yeah, the Ruling Class Elites are really worried about obedience to the Constitution, aren't they? What a joke. What a laughing stock. The take-down of the reasoning contained in the article to which Aubrecht refers could be accomplished by my 10 year-old granddaughter. But a REAL legal mind did take the time. Here's an excerpt from a rebuttal bJohn J. Vecchione and it IS worth the read:

Seidman cites Britain and New Zealand — places where respect for the past is so great that every law requires the assent of a monarch — as places without adherence to written constitutions. Yet monarchs, established churches, hereditary titles, and even a House of Lords may be a bit much from Americans to readopt. Rejection of the Constitution for the system of government that was in place before 1776 seems a little retrograde for a Progressive.
When I served 3 terms as a Virginia Magistrate, I took three oaths to defend the Constitution. I still have the first one I signed. I've never abrogated (and never will) that oath. I will defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And that's what I'm doing with this post. Corny, right? So regressive, right? 

Another blogger summed up this "scholar's" article this way:

It’s also the sort of thing you’d expect from a leftist college student with no knowledge of history and no understanding of the Constitution . . . Seidman not only shows a lack of knowledge (actual? or strategic?) of the true position of most of the Founders regarding slavery, he also expresses the typical leftist position that we should throw away the wisdom of the past (wisdom? how can that be; they’re just a bunch of propertied white guys—just like Seidman, by the way) because we want to do something, and that pesky old white-guy document stands in our way.  

That's another common thread through the modern mindset of these geniues - "We're so much smarter and wiser than our Founding Fathers." Yes, ignore the wisdom of the past.We've "evolved" to a higher order. Really, look around. American culture has become so debased it's hardly recognizable As I've said before:

These mosquito-like critics come off as petulant, spoiled, ungrateful, bratty little children who need their butts spanked. Most of those who criticize the Founders (and those who draw inspiration from them) in this vein, could not hold a candle to their accomplishments. 
These small men sit in ergonomic chairs at their cushioned keyboards in air-conditioned offices with every modern convenience at their beck and call and critique a generation of men who were truly well-educated and well-read; self-made giants who were, in every sense of the concept, renaissance men. Men who could farm, write brilliant treatises on government, history, and philosophy, lead men into battle, track a deer for miles, kill it with a black powder rifle, field dress it, and carry it home for their evening meal. Men who carved a nation out of a raw wilderness and founded the greatest republic in the history of the world. Men who risked their personal fortunes, liberty, and lives so that they could pass on a great republic to future generations. In comparison, most of their soft, flabby, lazy, critics would starve to death if Wal-Mart closed for a week. They can't think, write or speak without a computer or a teleprompter. They can't build an argument, much less a nation. Their writing often consists of cutting and pasting words from the templates of their ruling class masters; hoping someone will notice and invite them to some stuffy academic AE bash-fest seminar where the greatest challenge of the day will be to stay awake.

The Orwellian nature of American society has become breathtaking. Up is down, good is bad. The truth is now, most often, the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the "experts" are telling us. The problem is that politicians are IGNORING the constitution, not obeying it. But, for the low-information voter and pseudo-historian, they don't know the difference.

It's absolute crap.