Sunday Morning Book Review

The Revolutionary Paul Revere by Joel J. Miller is an action-packed account of the life of one of our country’s most romanticized historical figures. The author briefly discusses the events of Revere’s life while giving the subject due credit for being as significant to the Revolution as any Bostonian. This book reads like a report on Revere’s family, business, and on the events Revere was involved in while leaving out ideological or philosophical examinations of Revere’s political leanings. Revere was a patriot; that was his politics. And he expressed his patriotism in some incredible actions that still ring out in history with inspiring awe. This book captures those events with excitement. We recommend this to all.

Taught to us at an early age, Revere’s late night ride to warn the patriots at Lexington and Concord that the British army was on the way was a significant event in the creation of our country and Revere is the story’s undisputed hero. But his contribution to the fight for democracy was not limited to that one iconic horseback ride in 1775. Revere was the leader of the Boston harbor spy ring that kept tabs on all movements of the British army and navy, he participated in the Boston Tea Party, he attended rallies at the Liberty Tree, served in the Revolutionary War, and engraved one of the more famous depictions of the Boston Massacre. He also made numerous other rides as an express messenger from Boston to Philadelphia, which in those days on horseback through pitch black conditions and rough terrain was not an easy task.

Revere did all of this while owning a small business and raising a large family. As a professional he was considered an artisan which for Revere meant he was a blacksmith, wielder, mechanic, engraver, mill owner, innovator, and you can even add in dentist to his list of trades. At home he fathered eight children with his first wife who died of exhaustion. Then he fathered eight more with his second wife. Unfortunately Revere outlived most of his sixteen children.

As for his political views, the book does not touch on them much. There is the mention that Revere supported the ratification of the Constitution, but the author does not delve into why. Instead the focus is on the action, of which there is plenty. There is one great line on how Revere felt about the government’s involvement in economic matters; “there is no greater destroyer of wealth than misguided government.” Hear, hear.

The only disappointment I found from this book was that there was no emphasis on the famous ride to Lexington and Concord. The ride is of course included and told well, but in the book it stands shoulder to shoulder with the rest of his accomplishments. This is, however, consistent in the flow of the story, but I felt it failed to highlight the ride as the consequential moment that it was (for a great book on the ride itself check out Paul Revere’s Ride by David Hackett Fischer).

The book ends with the death of Revere at the old age of eighty-three. A sad but peaceful ending in how Revere lived through the Revolution while outliving so many close to him. The author quotes one of the notices published immediately after Revere’s passing that really captures his life, as well as the theme of this book; “a life so honorable and useful.”

paul revere.

Beer Me

Twitter always has a hashtag trending for whatever national day it is. For example, today is Beer Can Appreciation Day (#BeerCanAppreciationDay). Kind of silly. But this one is somewhat relevant to Virginia because today marks the first day that canned beer was sold, and it happened in Richmond.

In 1935 Krueger’s Finest Beer was delivered and sold in Richmond, Virginia and the people loved it. Virginians stamp of approval led the way for the mass production of the canned drink industry. Call us pioneers.

Recently the commonwealth has developed an unfortunate reputation of being a place for snobby microbrew elites who proudly fork over $9.79 for a pint of a beer whose name is a combination of a season, a breed of horse, and a fruit. It would be nice for a return to a simpler time when a can of ice cold Pabst Blue Ribbon was the choice over a glass of Orange Spring Friesian.

I prefer bottles, but I’ll revisit that preference this weekend now that I know canned beer is a Virginia thing.

pabst blue ribbon.

Sunday Morning Book Review

Igniting The American Revolution by Derek Beck takes the reader from the Boston Tea Party in 1773 to the Americans taking Fort Ticonderoga and then control of Lake Champlain in 1775. Only 270 pages, it’s a quick read through a fast-paced set of key events which propelled colonial America to war.

The beginning scene is what was then known as The Destruction of the Tea. The author explains how this was a protest that had a global impact and was conducted with the discipline of a military exercise. No one was allowed to steal any of the tea and the one who tried was quickly stopped and removed. We don’t have protests like that anymore.

The result of The Destruction of the Tea was Boston was put into a military controlled lockdown. General Thomas Gage, the British governor of Massachusetts, is a major figure who the author treats fairly. His control over Boston is described as strong but never exceedingly harsh. While some of the soldiers behaved in ways that no one could defend, General Gage held his officers to the highest standards.

Other major figures in the book are heroic Paul Revere and traitorous Benjamin Church. Revere is properly described as brave, selfless and honest. His ride from out of Boston across the water to Charlestown then on to Lexington is one of most important events in American history and the author gives it its due credit. Also credited is Revere’s network of spies that had eyes on the British from Boston harbor to the outskirts of Charlestown. Revere and his network sounded the alarm in the countryside that the redcoats were coming. Note; it is unlikely Revere was saying the “British are coming” and the author rightly points this out.

Church was also part of a spy network, but for the other side. He gave intelligence to the British and likely directly to Gage himself. His treachery is listed throughout.

The most detail can be found in the descriptions of the military structure on both sides and in their movements engaging each other first at Lexington and then at Concord. Greater detail is offered in a lengthy appendix section (14 in all).

The title suggests a comprehensive account of the lead-up to war, but the attention hardly leaves New England. As a Virginian I was not expecting this but don’t take this as criticism because keeping things in Massachusetts allowed the book to flow very smoothly from the key events of the Boston Tea Party to the first shots of the war at the battle of Lexington and Concord.

This is an outstanding book.


Scalia Law School At GMU

Earlier today George Mason University held the official dedication ceremony for the renaming of their law school; now called Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.

In attendance were many A-list names including Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Anthony Kennedy, Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas.

Justice Kagan spoke and reports are she gave an endearing speech in tribute to the late Scalia.

We couldn’t make the event so here’s the link to a write-up from WTOP.


Repeal The 17th Amendment

Part 3 of 3

Now sitting on the train next to some guy who simply asked me about the senate races, I asked rhetorically where did I leave off and then answered without hesitation; William Jennings Bryan. He was the Progressive Era, slick talking, three-time presidential loser who really pressed for the direct election of senators. Ignoring the principled intent of the Founders, Bryan resorted to scare tactics using images of smoked filled back rooms where votes were bought. Such fears are typical of citizens distrustful of government and since the implementation of the 17th Amendment this fear has not left our political society at all. So the idea of taking the vote away from a corruptible body (state legislatures) and placing it in a more responsible body (the people, who elected Stuart Smalley) so that the people and their government will enjoy a more harmonious relationship has proven false. Who do you trust more anyway, William Jennings Bryan or James Madison? I’ll take Madison any day.

“Alright man. But I don’t see the harm” he said.

The harm is you get candidates like Stuart Smalley. The people would not be disenfranchised; they could still show up with above thirty percent in turnout numbers for all the other exciting elected offices, such as Soil and Water Conservation Board. I then asked, what is the benefit? The people are not getting a larger say in the process because of population imbalances and the ability of a well funded and well organized minority to exploit those imbalances, which was mentioned in greater detail in part two. So where is the benefit?

I can’t find it. More elections are not the answer to how to achieve better government; better elections are the proper solution. A better election occurs when the candidates are truly qualified and voters are thoroughly informed. This does not happen in modern day state-wide elections. Voters choose to remain ignorant and are content with their choice. Efforts to obtain a minimal level of information on more than one candidate are often viewed by voters as burdensome. And thanks to the mind-numbing simplification of politics which has resulted from a two-party system, some voters know they only need a sample ballot on Election Day and they’ll be fine. Let’s take an election or two away from the overburden minds of careless voters. If we do so then not only are we cutting out an election, but we are also cutting out signs, mailings, robo-calls, mass emails, and everything else associated with a get-out-the-vote campaign. An election held in state legislatures would require a totally different style of campaign, or better yet, the way the Founders envisioned; no campaign at all as the best and brightest would be asked to serve. But today, campaign politics is a business, and it’s just bad business not to treat it as such.

So with all that being said I told him, “I truly wonder what is more likely; for a senator to stand up on the floor of the US Senate and ask for all of his colleagues to join him in repealing the 17th Amendment and therefore taking away their power and restoring the choice of their election to the state legislatures, or the magic beans I planted in my garden growing like the salesman told me they would.”


Check out part 1 and part 2 of Repeal The 17th Amendment.  

Repeal The 17th Amendment

Part 2 of 3

Responding to a very simple question of my opinion on the 2016 U.S Senate races, I continued my overindulgent answer by pointing out that the Senate was supposed to be for elder stewards who have proven their worth to the ones that choose to handle the minutia of budget construction, tax laws and other exciting parts of governing. This idea is eloquently expressed by John Jay in Federalist 64. State legislators are not full time, career politicians. Keep in mind that state legislators in Virginia earn a whooping 20 grand a year for their service. They are more like servants in government than career politicians at other levels and I believe that they are better suited to select someone to handle a job they understand. But under the popular vote system Al Franken can become a senator for his first job in government. Oh man, I can’t believe Stuart Smalley is a senator; that is just wrong. If the state legislature had the responsibility to send representatives to the upper chamber of Congress I doubt they would have asked Stuart Smalley, the Church Lady, Opera-man or any other Saturday Night Live character.

“Haha.” He laughed, a little.

Moreover, the popular vote at a statewide level allows for a well-organized and well funded minority to subvert the popular will of the state as a whole. Take Northern Virginia’s high concentration of residents as an example. Fairfax and Arlington counties, along with the City of Alexandria, have given Northern Virginia a look and political make-up that is greatly different from the rest of the commonwealth. Why should the over populated urban North tell the rural southern parts who is best to represent them? Bringing the votes down to a more proportional system levels the playing field thus giving the people a larger piece of the decision making process. Otherwise someone like the SEIU can sweep in with their paid door knockers in just Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria and yet the result of the election is supposed to reflect the will of the entire state. C’mon. Democracy is better than that and statewide elections need the state legislature to serve as a safe guard.

“Well I was just talking about,” he tried to get in, but I kept talking about how flawed the entire effort to institute the 17th Amendment was in the first place. As I started to tell him about how the whole thing was the life work of William Jennings Bryan the train settled into the station. As the doors readied to open I began to wonder if this poor gentleman was thinking that the train’s arrival will save him from having to hear more of my exciting thoughts on restoring our Republic. Well, it wasn’t.


Tune in tomorrow for part 3 of Repeal the 17th Amendment. Same Red NoVA channel, same Red NoVA time.

Repeal The 17th Amendment

Part 1 of a 3 part series

While waiting for a train the other day an older gentleman asked me, “What do you think of the U.S. Senate races in 2016?”

I told him that Article 1, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof.” The 17th Amendment changed this to the popular vote system we have today and that was a mistake that needs to be fixed. This is one of the most significant changes to the original document because it altered the balance of powers. The House is elected by the people, the Senate by the states, and the president by the Electoral College. This structure gave us a balance between the popular will of the people and the collective will of democratically elected representatives. Remember now, this is a republic, not a direct democracy. But the 17th Amendment changed the balance by tilting the scales in favor of the people, the people who vote in depressingly low numbers, the people who can’t name their state or local representatives, the people who hardly pay attention to politics but have no trouble at the ballot box thanks solely to the sample ballot they received on their way into the polls.

He said, “Huh?”

I continued by letting him know the Founders believed in a division of powers so that no one majority could dominate another. The people would still have their voice heard as to who should be their senator at the federal level because they get to choose their state senator and their state delegate or whatever. Those state representatives would then represent their constituents in their state’s own little electoral college for picking senators. The people would of course still retain the popular vote for the House, but power of voting will be more evenly dispersed throughout the republic with the states getting their fair share.

While advocates of the 17th Amendment believed the people would be brought closer to the process, the opposite as been seen. State-wide elections are tough with a lot of geography to cover. Those campaigns have created an impersonal relationship with their potential voters as a candidate shots around a busy state. State legislators, on the other hand, have a much closer relationship with their constituents (ever been to Albo-Palooza?). State Legislators have the opportunity to seek and receive feed back at a personal level and then answer to the responsibility of their choice as part of a voter’s consideration in the voting booth come re-election.

As I continued I could tell that this guy’s surprise was not turning into curiosity, which didn’t really matter because I was not going to stop talking about how the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed so that our Republic can be restored.


Tune in tomorrow for part 2 of Repeal the 17th Amendment. Same Red NoVA channel, same Red NoVA time.

Jackson Finally To Be Removed From $20 Bill

President Andrew Jackson will finally be removed from the twenty-dollar bill. He will be replaced by abolitionist Harriet Tubman. This is a move the federal government should have made a while ago.

Jackson was always such a curious choice for our nation’s currency. He hated banks. He called paper money “ragged money.” He ran a successful re-election campaign built on ending the charter of the Second Bank of the United States. And when you consider that Jackson is guilty of the most blatant violation of separation of powers when he said, in regards to the unconstitutional Indian Removal Act, “[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it,” he should then be classified as ineligible for such an exclusive place in everyday American life as having his face on our currency.

Replacing Jackson on the twenty ends earlier talk about replacing Alexander Hamilton on the ten-dollar bill. As much as I dislike Hamilton, he was the first secretary of the treasury, so keeping him on our money does make sense.

To Jackson’s, replacement, Tubman, the feds made a fine selection. Tubman’s history is well-known as she was the chief engineer of the famed Underground Railroad, which was responsible for facilitating the path to freedom for countless runaway slaves. And don’t tell the radical left that Tubman was a 2nd Amendment supporter.

Whoever is picked will open the door for a debate on who else could’ve/should’ve been picked. So in the spirit of debate, let’s join. Tubman’s efforts were an inspiration to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s. From that the era, maybe consider Thurgood Marshall, who in addition to being the first black Supreme Court Justice, was also the lead attorney in the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education case, a case that eventually helped permanently change our country for the better. Other historic Americans to consider are William Howard Taft, the only one to serve our country as president and chief justice of the Supreme Court, or the Father of The Constitution James Madison, but there are too many presidents on our money, so I would prefer a non-president. Maybe Chief Justice John Marshall could be considered. Everyone likes astronauts, so maybe Neil Armstrong, who also served in the military. But since this is money we are talking about, then why not consider a champion of free market capitalism? The radical left is currently campaigning against success in the private sector, so this is probably not the best time to push a fat cat, but they are always whining about something so here goes. J.D. Rockefeller and Cornelius Vanderbilt are two of the bigger names. Maybe Thomas Edison should be considered, his inventive mind is a good example of how talent is rewarded in the free market.

Replacing Andrew Jackson on the twenty-dollar bill is the right move. He never belonged there in the first place. Iconic abolitionist Harriet Tubman is a great selection. Her rise to fame was through selfless sacrifice. She fought for freedom and Jackson fought against banks. And since banks are where people get twenty-dollar bills, and because Americans have the freedom to spend our twenty-dollar bills as we see fit, replacing an anti-bank figure with a pro-freedom figure makes a ton of sense.

20 bucks.

Anniversary Of The Phone

Today’s Throwback Thursday edition is dedicated to Alexander Graham Bell’s first call on the telephone.

At the time the call was technologically advanced, on the cutting edge, and only available for an elite minority of the population. Fast forward 140 years and phones are mobile computers seen everywhere.

To honor Bell and his phone, I am posting this soft, breezy blog post via my phone.



Happy George Washington’s Birthday

Today is Presidents’ Day, which is the poorest conceived addition to our holiday calendar.

This holiday did not start out as Presidents’ Day. It began as a day to celebrate George Washington’s birthday, who was so much more to our Founding than just serving as president. But then came Abraham Lincoln, whose February birthday falls just a few days from Washington’s. So with two giants right next to each other, it made sense to combine the celebrations. Unfortunately this snowballed into a day to honor all the presidents, giving Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan the same recognition that Washington and Lincoln receive.

Leave it to the big brother government to step-in and handout a trophy to everyone for participation. So you’ll have to forgive me for saying, “happy George Washington’s birthday,” because saying “happy Presidents’ Day” just doesn’t line up with our Constitution and our separate, but equal, branches of government.


Friday Funnies

Today is Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, so this edition of Friday Funnies is dedicated to him, our funniest president. Here are some witty quotes from Lincoln;

“He can compress the most words into the smallest ideas better than any man I ever met.”

“If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?”

“Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.”

“Tact: the ability to describe others as they see themselves.”

“If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee.”

“The best thing about the future is that it comes only one day at a time”

“You have to do your own growing no matter how tall your grandfather was.”

“Give me six hours to chop down a tree, and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe.”

And I think Lincoln would have liked this one…


Sunday Morning Book Review

1776 by David McCullough is a great book that follows the Continental Army for the year as they fight the British for independence. The book takes the reader from the stalemate win in Boston in the beginning of the year to the historic victory in the Battle of Trenton to close the year, as well through all the loses, the hardships, and the near finishing blows for our American rebels.

The author rightly concludes that the British did not understand the conflict of which they were engaged. The Brits fought a conventional style war where they went after choice territory instead of just trying to slaughter the American ragtag army. In the Battle of Long Island the British could have kept going after their big win and taken all of New York in one big sweep that would have destroyed our army and it is highly unlikely that the congress would have been able to recruit a new one, thus ending the war then. Other small fights followed and the Americans continued to lose. It wasn’t until the difficult winter that George Washington was able to muster up a huge win when he famously led our troops across the Delaware River to take Trenton on Christmas Day.

General Washington is the focal point of the author’s attention. Other than the British almost destroying the American army, Washington had to worry about the congress destroying the army’s funds. Pay was often late, supplies were short, and decisions delayed. Washington had a difficult time trying to get what he needed from congress. His letters to John Hancock and John Adams are quoted throughout the book and they vividly illustrate Washington’s frustrations. Also, Washington was forced to keep together a group of civilian first time soldiers who had yet to unite under a national banner. Militias were loyal to their state and this created rivalry and division among the Continental Army. The Declaration of Independence, which came in that summer, helped to unite, but the spirit of ’76 was for independence from the British, the spirit to unite as a nation came later.

Overall this is a great book. It receives our highest recommendation.


On MLK Jr. Day

Today we remember the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. An icon of the Civil Rights movement Dr. King accomplished a lot. One of his many timeless contributions to political discourse is his I Have A Dream speech. The structure of the speech is brilliant. In addition to the authenticity of the message, the repetition of language, the rhythm of the prose, the allusions to Biblical and secular traditions, are all mesmerizing and inspiring.

Linked here is the full text of the speech, or you can watch the speech at YouTube, linked here.


Sunday Morning Book Review

This week we are reviewing Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates by Brian Kilmeade and Don Yaeger. This book recounts the efforts of the early United States to combat high jacking and capture of American merchant ships passing through the Mediterranean.

This turned out to be a pretty exciting book about adventure on the high seas. The pages include naval battles, shipwrecks, lots of captures, enslavements, ransoms, tributes and there is even a sword fight scene that would have been fit for the silver screen.

The diplomatic chess game in the late 1700s and early 1800s was incredibly slow due to having to cross the Atlantic Ocean by boat. The exchange of information on the progress of negotiations was a crawl, while captured Americans waited in enslavement camps. Years went by before some were released.

The US Marine Corps has a special place in all of this. Their presence in North Africa was the first time they were deployed to foreign soil, memorialized in the Marines’ Hymn in the line “From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli.”

I draw issue with the title. While Jefferson was the commander in chief at the end who gave the order to precede with full military action against the Tripoli pirates, he was not the only president who had to deal with them. The book begins with Presidents George Washington and then John Adams having to negotiation tribute. Cheers to Washington and Adams for having the foresight to build up the navy while these negotiations were going on. By the time the book gets to Jefferson he is then hardly mentioned as the action in the Mediterranean heats up. Moreover, the pirates who were protected by the government in Tripoli were not the only group causing problems for us. We had to negotiate with the heads of Tangier, Algiers and Tunis. So the book could have been called The United States and the Barbary Coast Pirates.

This is a pretty exciting book and a fairly quick read. We recommend it to any fans of military history and/or fans of the Founding Fathers.


30th Anniversary of Reagan Meeting Gorbachev

Today’s Throwback Thursday brings us to the 30th anniversary of the first time Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev met. With the Cold War in steady engagement and delicately on the brink of turning hot, these two heads of state sat down in Geneva, Switzerland to discuss peace.

Reagan had a much stronger hand going into the talks. And he flexed his strength early on. Here is how Richard Reeves described the start in his book President Reagan; “As the Soviet leader, the younger man, stepped out of his limousine in overcoat, scarf, and hat, Reagan bounded down the stairs without coat or hat. Round one to the American, reported the world’s news-starved press.”

The Soviet system was crumbling and Gorbachev knew it was only a matter time before a full implosion. Furthering the arms race was an outcome undesirable to all parties. This meeting could have been a lot different. Reagan could have come down hard and hammered his Soviet counterpart, but he took another approach. Through his position of strength Reagan built a foundation of trust with Gorbachev. This was an important element in the how the Cold War stayed cold. Both sides had more nukes than needed to turn the other side into a crater, but the war eventually ended without a nuclear exchange.

The media covered the 1985 summit with high priority. The major broadcast networks sent Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings to host their nightly shows live from Geneva. The intense media coverage can shoulder some of the blame for the general assessment at the conclusion of the event that the talks had failed to produce anything substantive. However, our hindsight now shows us that this was a monumental meeting because it was the origin of a relationship that eventually facilitated the peaceful end to the Soviet Union.

Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev got to know each other 30 years ago today and we grateful for that.

reagan and gorbachev

Denali is Back

President Obama will announce today the changing of the name of Alaska’s Mt. McKinley back to the proper native name of Denali.

One thing liberals love to do is try to re-write history to make things sound nicer, but this change is one that we should all be okay with. Alaskan natives have been pushing for this change ever since the mountain was named by the first white person to reach its peak. The name McKinley was chosen because that’s who the president was at the time. But William McKinley never made it Alaska and has no direct connection to the state. And Denali means “the great one,” which President McKinley was not, so changing from Denali to a B- team president is quite a reach.

Obama’s move here is not unilaterally at all. Kind-of Republican* Senator Lisa Murkowski wants the name changed to Denali and has introduced legislation to do so in each of her terms. Fools in Ohio, McKinley’s home state, have worked to keep the name because they like him, which is stupid. A stadium is not going to be named after a player or coach who was never associated with that team. I’m sure there are plenty of things in Ohio that the former president could have his name attached to.

Denali, the great one, is rightfully back where it always was.


*Senator Murkowski lost in the Republican primary last time around as an incumbent, but Alaska does not have the sore loser law, so she ran a successful write-in campaign in the General Election beating the Republican nominee. Senator Murkowski caucuses with Republicans and people on Capitol Hill act like nothing unusual happened.

Democrats Dump Jefferson-Jackson from Annual Dinner

The Democrats up in Connecticut are dumping the names of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson from their big annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner because of slavery. The Connecticut Democrats governing committee voted unanimously this week to drop the names. A headline in the Hartford Courant read, “Democrats Drop Names Of Slave-Owning Presidents From Fundraising Dinner.” The article quotes the state party chairman saying, “Let’s work together to show the rest of the state exactly what it means to be a Connecticut Democrat,” and notes the motivation behind the move in part coming from the Confederate flag “controversy.” C’mon.

This is just another attempt by Democrats at rewriting history. If the Democrats want to disassociate themselves from slavery then they need to disband their party and start fresh.

Let’s open our history books for a moment; the Democrats were in favor of slavery and gave us Jim Crow laws, while the Republican Party began as the anti-slavery offshoot of the Whig Party. Moreover, I never appreciated the Democrats trying to own Thomas Jefferson. They try to pull it off because Jefferson was a member of a party that eventually, over many years, turned into the Democratic Party of today. This approach ignores policy positions and basic Constitutional interpretation, which are much better indicators of party affiliation. In sum, Jefferson stood for states’ rights against the rival party at the time, the Federalists, who wanted a more centralized government. That fundamental argument exists today and it places Jefferson very clearly in the Republican Party. As far as Andrew Jackson is concerned, the Democrats can have him. President Jackson, in response to the Supreme Court overturning his administration’s Indian removal policy, said, “Mr. Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.” Jackson should have been impeached on the spot as never before or since has there been such a blatant disregard for separation of powers. So I’m fine with the Democrats owning Jackson.

Back to today; the rush for political correctness in this case is odd because the resolution that passed did not include any new names. The Democrats just felt it necessary to dump two of our country’s bigger historical names.

This all leads to several questions such as who they’ll pick as replacements and will this have a ripple effect to other states? Will the Democratic presidential candidates be expected to boycott states where the names haven’t been changed? Will Virginia follow suit? And why isn’t The Dukes of Hazzard on anymore?


Jimmy Carter Worked All Day

A frequent stop on my runs through the internet is The History Channel’s This Day in History page. Typically the page offers around 20 brief descriptions of noteworthy historical events from a variety of categories. My interest in politics often has me looking at the Presidential category, which had a particularly interesting headline today: “President Carter puts in a long day at the office.” Seriously, that’s the story.

This is truly remarkable. Imagine a chief executive staying busy at work and still making it to bed before midnight. Well President Carter did that on this day in 1977, and The History Channel is telling the story. Usually reserved for significant events, such as May 12th‘s entry which is dedicated to Teddy Roosevelt being the first president filmed doing official duties, the Presidential category has to really reach to include Jimmy Carter in it. The site must have a quota for the presidents and Carter makes it tough on historians. Working all day, playing tennis, having dinner and going to a show with his wife, is considered a noteworthy set of accomplishments when you’re talking about Carter.

It is fair to assume that when you have a presidency as pitiful as Carter’s you should appreciate any positive press you can get. But I couldn’t help but take the story that he worked all day as an illustration of how bad a job he did.