Category archives: History

One Hundred Days: Where Does it Come From?

by Robert Morrison

April 30, 2009


There’s a lot of media buzz about President Obama’s first “hundred days.” What’s so special about one hundred days? After all, he was elected to a term of four years. One hundred days surely is not very long in comparison to the more than 1,460 days of a Presidential normal term. (Those hardy souls who are already sporting 1.20.13 bumper stickers seem to all their fellow commuters to have jumped the gun.)

The media is also full of stories of how Americans are in love with our “hip” First Family. If Americans are in love with a father-headed, married-with-children model family, that is certainly a very good thing. If the Obamas can make marriage hip, then I’d say hip, hip, hooray.

But that hundred day thing has an odd origin for a free people to celebrate. It comes from the Emperor Napoleon. Talk about hip. Napoleon was the trend-setter and fashion-maker of Europe for fifteen years. The “Empire” style in women’s fine clothing, art, architecture, and home decor was all the rage. Napoleon’s massive Arc de Triomphe in the heart of Paris commemorated all his spectacular military successes-and France did have spectacular military successes guided by the strategic and tactical genius of the young conqueror.


Nor was Napoleon only a military swaggerer. He revised the laws of France. To this day, the Civil Code (or Code Napoleon) forms the bulk of French law. He reorganized civil administration and education. Napoleon was a tireless ruler.

Then, in 1812, he invaded Russia. He wanted to force the Russians to abide by his trade boycott against England. He entered the vast, forbidding steppes in June, 1812, with more than 600,000 men. By the time he retreated from Moscow, in December, he had only 10,000 men left, suffering some 97% in casualties. The temperatures-sometimes as cold as 60 below-were so severe that the antimony alloy of the soldiers’ greatcoat buttons cracked and crumbled. Their coats flapped open. Thousands succumbed to cold, starvation, and disease.

You would think the French would hate such a bloody ruler. You would think he would be run out of France when he returned from Moscow. Think again. He was defeated in 1814 by the allies, captured and exiled to the little Mediterranean island of Elba. There he plotted his return.

He landed on the shores of Southern France on March 20, 1815. Would the French troops of the unsteady French King Louis XVIII shoot the returning despot down? Napoleon bared his breast to the soldiers and invited them to kill him. They wept (they were French, after all) and went over to Napoleon en masse.

Napoleon swept on toward Paris to reclaim the imperial throne he had invented for himself. He gathered more than 100,000 troops. In June, he met a hastily-reorganized allied army of British and Prussians under the Duke of Wellington at a little Belgian town called Waterloo. There, on June 18, 1815, the Iron Duke crushed Napoleon utterly. Tens of thousands more of his brave young French troops died crying out Vive L’empereur! (Long Live the Emperor!) They truly were brave.

Napoleon’s second and last period in power was just one hundred days. That’s where the journalists got the term that they quickly applied to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first three months of furious legislative activity during the Great Depression. It was then that a rubber-stamp liberal Congress rammed through dozens of bills-many of which set up agencies and programs we still live with. Some were pretty good. But many were ill-considered (if they were considered at all). That was 1933. And, hold onto your seats, friends, there was the second Hundred Days in 1937. That’s when FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court. He overreached then and even his go-along gang in Congress choked. On that one, they handed him a stinging defeat.

The Napoleon thing is fascinating. Yes, he did have some solid achievements for France. But he was a tyrant. He ruled with the aid of an efficient and ruthless secret police. He rigged all the elections and controlled the press. He led millions of young men of Europe to their deaths.

The people of France, however, seemed not to mind. When his body was returned to France from St. Helena long after he died in exile, all of Paris turned out for his re-interment in a huge and impressive tomb in the historic Hotel des Invalides. It was to this incredible monument that the conquering Adolf Hitler was drawn during his five-hour whirlwind tour of Paris after his stunning victory over France in 1940.

A hundred days? Are we seeing a return of that kind of hero worship in our time? Despite all that we know about Napoleon, tens of thousands of selfless young people were quite willing to lay down their lives for him. It’s a sobering thought.

Men of intemperate minds cannot be free,” wrote the great Irish Member of Parliament, Edmund Burke, “their passions forge their fetters.” Burke was the great friend of liberty-and the implacable enemy of the French revolutionary disease.

Have we been stoking passions in this country-ever since the 1960s-that will forge our own chains of despotism? I pray it is not so. But even as we assess our own First Hundred Days, it is important not to give in to passion. We must remain cool and objective-if we would remain free.

Aaron Klein: Obama Pushing Saudi Plan for Israel-Arab Peace

by Chris Gacek

April 22, 2009

            Perhaps, Barack Obama’s bow to the King of Saudi Arabia was much more than a common courtesy.  If Aaron Klein of WorldnetDaily and Schmoozing with Terrorists (his book) is correct then President Obama owes a great intellectual debt to the Saudi monarch, Abdullah.  This is so because Obama is using the Saudi King’s “Arab Peace Initiative” as the framework of his Middle East foreign policy.

            In an April 21, 2009 WorldNetDaily article Klein summarizes the Arab Initiative as follows:

The Arab Initiative, originally proposed by King Abdullah in 2002 and later adopted by the Arab League, states that Israel would receive “normal relations” with the Arab world in exchange for a full withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan Heights and eastern Jerusalem, which includes the Temple Mount.

It also “demands the imposition of a non-binding U.N. resolution that calls for so-called Palestinian refugees who wish to move inside Israel to be permitted to do so at the ‘earliest practicable date.’”  There are approximately 4 million Arabs who claim Palestinian refugee status with the United Nations.

            Netanyahu has told U.S. envoy, George Mitchell, that Israel will condition talks “with the Palestinians on Palestinian leaders’ first recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, a step that would be difficult should Hamas join a unity government.”  According to Klein, Mitchell recently described Obama’s general plan to Netanyahu, and the Israeli leader was dismayed to learn that Obama was following the Saudi proposal.  Klein described these developments in an interview during the second hour of the John Batchelor Show (April 19, 2009) (minute 15 (mp3 file)).

            In late January, Klein discussed Obama’s attraction to the Saudi plan on the day of President Obama’s interview on an Arab TV network.  In that interview Obama referenced King Abdullah’s plan and spoke approvingly of it (“… I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage to put forward something that is as significant as that.”).  Given Obama’s admiration for a courageous plan, a bow to the author of the courageous plan was probably in order.  (Unfortunately for Abdullah - Obama didn’t give him the really cool Hugo Chavez-handshake in addition to the bow.)

             Make no mistake about it:  these are very dangerous times for Israel.  According to Klein, “Defenders of Israel warn the plan would leave the Jewish state with truncated, difficult-to-defend borders and could threaten Israel’s Jewish character by compelling it to accept millions of foreign Arabs.”  More to the point, Klein states that “Arab Street” views the Arab Peace Initiative as a way to fatally undermine the state of Israel.

Happy Birthday, Mr. Jefferson

by Robert Morrison

April 13, 2009

Today is Thomas Jefferson’s birthday. Born in 1743, Jefferson was described at age 32 as a young man who could “could calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, dance a minuet, and play the violin.”

Jefferson referred to his election as President as “the revolution of 1800.” It was even more hazardous than the famous “hanging chads” of the Florida recount in 2000. His two terms as President were followed by two terms for his closest friend and political lieutenant, James Madison. These two terms were followed by two terms-almost uncontested-for Jefferson’s second closest political ally, James Monroe. By the time John Quincy Adams was elected President in 1824, this son of an old political rival also counted himself a Jeffersonian.

As President, Jefferson doubled the size of the nation with the Louisiana Purchase. He ordered Lewis & Clark on a Expedition of Discovery that was the nineteenth century’s version of the Apollo Moon program. It would be hard to accept the view of one leading Evangelical scholar that Jefferson left office “in disgrace.”

This American renaissance man was incredibly gifted. His birthday ought to be a national holiday for defenders of religious liberty. Jefferson famously vowed “upon the altar of God eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” His Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786) set a world standard for religious liberty and is one of the three achievements Jefferson asked to have inscribed on his tombstone. 

Jefferson was a famous man of science. He served, after Benjamin Franklin, as the President of the American Philosophical Society, the new republic’s leading scientific organization. In his mind, religious liberty and science did not clash. Nor should they.

But they do clash in Pennsylvania. There, two and a half years ago, a federal judge banned the teaching of Intelligent Design in the Dover public schools. Claiming that ID is a thinly veiled attempt to introduce impermissible creationism into public school classrooms, the judge predictably cited Jefferson’s “wall of separation” in his opinion. Even in the U.S. Supreme Court had not hopelessly confused the meaning of that famous phrase from President Jefferson’s 1802 Letter to the Danbury Baptists, it is certainly odd to cite Jefferson in clamping down on freedom of inquiry.

If Judge John Jones knew his man, he might have considered the strange fact that Jefferson was himself an advocate of Intelligent Design. He actually used the phrase “intelligence in the design” in rejecting the atheism of his French philosopher friends. In a long letter to his reconciled political foe, former President John Adams, Jefferson was at pains to describe what he had learned, not from Holy Scripture, but from his scientific studies about the origins of the universe. (Let’s preserve Jefferson’s eighteenth century spellings and punctuation. It’s still less fraught with error than that judge’s ascerbic opinion.)

On the contrary I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in it’s parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to percieve and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of it’s composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with it’s distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organised as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in it’s course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed thro’ all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe.

Design, cause and effect, superintending power, restoring power, a fabricator of all things-not the kind of fabrication we see in the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence-but a Maker, oops, a maker. How many ways could he have said it? This ain’t all an accident, folks.

So, today, in the service of the Supreme Court’s rendering of the First Amendment, we have a chapter-and-verse denial of the worldview that Thomas Jefferson and his dear friend James Madison thought was fundamental. Well, you have to watch out for those fundamentalists, you know.

Judge Jones said that Intelligent Design was just a subterfuge to sneak creationism into the classroom. The horror!

Perhaps Judge Jones should read Daniel Boorstin’s Lost World of Thomas Jefferson. There, he would learn that Mr. Jefferson-and all the most advanced scientific minds of the early republic-believed fervently in a Creator. Perhaps that’s why they thought we also had unalienable rights-endowed by our Creator.

The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time,” Jefferson wrote in his famous 1774 pamphlet “A Summary View of the Rights of British North America.” That pamphlet was his audition for the task of drafting the Declaration of Independence.

Delegate John Adams was so taken with Jefferson’s ideas-and with his “peculiar felicity of expression”-that he drafted the draftsman to pen America’s founding document.

One wonders whether in Pennsylvania’s public school history classes it would be permissible to teach that the founders of this republic-without exception-believed in a Creator God.  Or that the Declaration and Constitution are suffused with their enlightened understandings.

Pennsylvania has other constitutional oddities. In their Supreme Court chambers in Harrisburg, you can see Moses carving the Ten Commandments. The famous Violet Oakley mural lists each item of the Decalogue and even refers to these Judeo-Christian tenets as “Revealed Law” (capital R, capital L).

Until they were caught in the act, Pennsylvania Supreme Court officers had intentionally blurred the Oakley text in pamphlets they printed for visitors. How strange that Alabama’s elected Chief Justice Roy Moore was forced off the bench for bringing into his courtroom a marble monument of the Ten Commandments. Yet, Pennsylvania’s seven justices have sat placidly for a century under a full-color representation of Moses receiving the Ten Commandments-replete with fire and lightning!

Jefferson knew what he meant when he pledged eternal hostility to all forms of tyranny over the mind of man.

I had the honor for several years of taking groups of students to Mr. Jefferson’s amazing home at Monticello. There, I would note what columnist George Will’s famous quote about Jefferson: “He lived as a free man ought to live.” No, I would emphasize. Honest John Adams lived as a free man ought to live. He never freed his slaves because he never had any.

Even so, Jefferson should be honored by all. As President Kennedy memorably said in 1962 when he hosted a dinner for forty-nine American Nobel Prize winners: “I think this is the most extraordinary [collection of] talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”

The Obama Obeisance

by Robert Morrison

April 4, 2009

The internet is alive with stories about President Barack Obama bowing low before Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah. It was bad enough when George W. Bush invited this odious tyrant to Crawford and was pictured walking hand-in-hand with him. The White House defensively claimed then that it was a Saudi custom for men to express their friendship by holding hands. Had they never heard: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”? That was bad enough. This Obama obeisance was horrible.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was accused of wanting to be a king. But he knew a lot more about how to behave around monarchs than his present-day successors do. When King George VI and his wife, Queen Elizabeth (parents of Elizabeth II) came to the Roosevelt home at Hyde Park in 1939, Franklin and Eleanor gave them a picnic. They served the first British monarchs ever to set foot on U.S. soil hot dogs and beans! How thoroughly American.

During that same visit, the President ended a late-night conversation with the King by tapping the young monarch on the knee and saying: “Young man, it’s time you were in bed.”

As we’ve been reminded with First Lady Michele Obama patting Queen Elizabeth on the back recently, for a commoner to touch a British monarch is considered an act of lese majeste. That old French term meant “an injury to the King’s dignity.” It gave rise to the English saying, “You never touch the King, except to kill him.” (It’s a good thing George VI didn’t choke on those Boston baked beans. Imagine the Secret Service trying to perform a Heimlich maneuver on him without touching him.)

FDR met with King Abdullah’s father, Abdulazziz in 1945 on board the USS Quincy. Abdullah is one of more than three dozen sons of Saudi Arabia’s founder. Roosevelt and the Saudi king can be seen in old photos staring directly at the camera. He and the old desert chieftain are correct, even civil, but they are not behaving like bosom buddies.

Certainly Roosevelt would never have dreamed of bowing before a Saudi or any foreign dignitary. In fact, Prime Minister Winston Churchill-possibly freedom’s greatest champion on earth-bowed to FDR when he met him. Churchill was acknowledging Roosevelt’s stature as Chief of State. Churchill was keenly aware of the difference between monarchies and republics. In fact, this half-American statesman called the United States “the Great Republic.”

So why was the Obama Obeisance so horrible? The President of the United States should bow to no man. Nobody should bow to Abdullah. His kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of the worst human rights abusers on earth. Muslims who convert to Christianity-or are even suspected of converting-are killed there. Sometimes their headless bodies are even crucified. Slavery was outlawed in Saudi Arabia only in 1962-but no non-Muslim is allowed inside Mecca to determine if this is really true. The Bushes-father and son-claimed personal friendship with the Saudi royal family. They said the Saudis were our great allies in the war on terror. Maybe. But it is Saudi petrodollars that fuel the militant Wahhabi version of Islam at home and around the world-including U.S. prisons. It’s a short step from Wahhabi Islam to jihadism.

I come by my republican beliefs naturally. My father was in the U.S. Merchant Service in World War II. He brought oranges and bananas to Welsh children who, under strict British rationing, had never seen these fruits. “Pop” stopped in a pub in Swansea, Wales and ordered a cup of coffee. In those pre-Starbucks days, but under severe wartime shortages, that cup cost three dollars.

Suddenly, someone ran into the pub and cried out: “Their Majesties!” Everyone, including the barkeep, ran out to see King George VI and his wife, Queen Elizabeth. It was a tribute to the monarchs’ bravery that they could visit bombed-out cities in an open car-with no fear of assassination. Pop stayed at the bar, quietly drinking his coffee.

Many times I would tease him. “It was your only chance to see real, live monarchs, Pop, how could you pass it up?” My father’s would snort and wave his hand dismissively. “What use do I have for monarchs? I am an American.

Since he passed away, I have returned to that story many times. Pop deeply respected the courage of the British people. He knew he would be expected to bow if he went into the street. He did not want to offend our valiant allies. Part of his understanding of what it meant to be an American is that he bowed to no man. And besides, he didn’t want that $3 cup of coffee to get cold.

It is tragic that President Obama has abased himself before King Abdullah. In doing so, he abased us all. We used to sing “Thy banners make tyranny tremble.” Now, those lyrics have been re-written: Thy banners make tyranny comfortable.

The Attempted Assassination of President Reagan and the Value of a Single Life

by Robert Morrison

March 31, 2009

President Ronald ReaganAs some commentators are noting, today is the 28th anniversary of the day President Reagan was shot. I remember the day vividly. The college dean for whom I was working told me the news. “I’m sorry your President was shot, Bob,” he said, sucking deeply on his cigarette. Then he added, “Of course, my wife wonders why assassins on our side are always such bad shots.”

The deranged young man who shot the President outside the Washington Hilton actually didn’t hit him directly. His bullet seems to have ricocheted off a wall and entered the President’s chest. The Secret Service agents who tackled the gunman had acted with heroism and speed.

Reagan was taken to George Washington University Hospital. He was in intense pain, but he managed to give a game smile to photographers. Only inside the emergency entrance did his knees buckle. He was rushed into surgery. His doctors later reported that they’d never seen a 70-year old man with such well-developed chest muscles. The bullet lodged less than an inch from the President’s heart. His internal bleeding was massive, life threatening. His Presidency—less than three months old—could have ended at that moment.

Reagan was the first U.S. President ever hit and not killed. That very day, while an anxious nation watched, his comments to Nancy were broadcast worldwide. “Honey,” he said, “I forgot to duck.” Even at the point of death, Reagan could not resist a quip. It was an historic one, at that. That line was the one Jack Dempsey had used when he lost the World Heavyweight boxing title to Gene Tunney—fifty-five years before!

The nation bonded with Ronald Reagan that dreadful day. He became our American hero in a way he had not been before. His humor and his courage inspired millions. His approval ratings soared. He used his tremendous popularity to help push his program through a resisting Congress. It is this historic program that is, even now, being bulldozed by President Obama and his compliant cohorts on Capitol Hill.

We came so close to losing the Gipper that day. When we think of all he accomplished—lifting a crushing burden of taxation from American families, fighting for freedom for millions in Eastern Europe, expressing public concern for the fate of millions of unborn children, and above all, humbly acknowledging that we are “one nation Under God”-we can once again realize what a treasure each human life is.

America should be the land where dreams come true. Ronald Reagan took care to clear the paths of laudable pursuit not only for others like himself, but he also defended the rights of millions yet unborn. Today, we can thank God Ronald Reagan was spared to do his great work. His story can encourage us to do ours.

Let’s Honor “Jemmie” Madison!

by Robert Morrison

March 20, 2009

James Madison’s birthday came around this week. We might have celebrated with ice cream, which his beloved wife, Dolley, first served at a Presidential Inauguration in 1813. March 16th was not attended with the kind of celebration we used to accord George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Nonetheless, this 5-foot, 4-inch founder was a giant whose memory deserves to be honored. Sadly, all of our greatest Presidents seem to have been submerged in the indigestible stew we now call Presidents Day. Despite this, we should all be grateful to little “Jemmie” Madison.

Madison was a leader in establishing religious liberty for Americans-and this “lustre of our country” (his beautiful phrase) made America a beacon for the oppressed of many lands. In the nineteenth century, America was treasured as a refuge for Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, and Jews. Even today, Christian Arabs, Cuban and Vietnamese Catholics, Hispanic Pentecostals, Russian Jews, and many other peoples have found America a safe haven.

Madison’s leadership succeeded in bringing Jefferson’s vision of a free republic with complete religious freedom to their beloved Virginia. Jefferson had introduced his bill to establish religious freedom in 1779. Then, in the midst of our revolution, Virginia was still in danger of British invasion. The Virginia General Assembly did not act on Jefferson’s bill until seven years later. By 1786, with peace and independence secured, Madison could successfully carry the legislative fight for his best friend, Jefferson. The Sage of Monticello was away in France at the time. Separated by the Atlantic, the two corresponded regularly, and Jefferson congratulated his friend on their mutual success. All Europe, he reported, had received the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom with approval. Well, all enlightened Europeans, anyway.

Madison soon turned to Philadelphia. There, the lessons he learned in the fight for religious freedom helped him to see that in a multiplicity of factions lay liberty’s guarantee. Just as in Virginia, the many denominations of Christians helped ensure the religious liberty of all.

Madison had stood firmly against Patrick Henry’s attempt to have Virginia’s government tax all citizens for the maintenance of Christian ministers and teachers. Henry understood that republican government could not survive without religious support. Madison’s famous Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785, however, warned against allowing the state to determine who should be recognized as Christian and who should be eligible for state disbursements. Madison’s arguments proved persuasive to Virginia’s burgeoning Baptists-who sought nothing from the state but freedom to preach and teach.

Many of today’s atheizers see Madison as a natural ally in their determination to rid the public square of all vestiges of the Christian religion. Madison and Jefferson, they argue, supported the highest of high walls of separation between church and state. Where Jefferson and Madison declined, in their four terms as President, to proclaim days of Thanksgiving and fasting, atheizers see their own anti-religious views affirmed.

The atheizers have more trouble explaining away Madison’s famous churchyard debate with James Monroe in January, 1789. At Hebron Lutheran Church, near Charlottesville, Virginia, James Madison stood for three hours in the cold to appeal for the votes of Christian citizens in “that nest of Dutchmen [Germans].” Madison must have impressed the Lutherans with his soft-spoken sincerity and with his commitment to religious liberty. He was described as always the best prepared in any debate.

Arch separationists today would have us believe that we violate the First Amendment whenever politicians seek support from Christian citizens. But Madison won that election and proceeded from that snowy churchyard to New York. There, he joined the First Congress and wrote the First Amendment.

It is clear that Madison would have opposed federal grants and contracts going to churches as churches. The fact is that both Madison and Jefferson wanted a federal government vastly smaller, far more limited in scope and powers, than what we see today.

They would both have been appalled at the mountain of debt now threatening to crash down on us and our posterity.

Assuming, however, that Madison and Jefferson could be enlisted to support a broad system of federal grants and contracts, it is highly doubtful that they would have refused funding only to those organizations that are faith-based. In fact, Jefferson specifically authorized federal funds for missionaries to the Kaskaskia Indians. Those missionaries’ efforts for health, agriculture and literacy among the tribes would benefit all Americans.

So, today, we have faith-based organizations which have been permitted to compete with secular groups for federal funds. The faith-based groups have been advised, wisely, to incorporate as charitable, tax-exempt institutions which stand apart from churches and synagogues.

President Obama has signaled his willingness to let this program survive, but his projected changes may make it unrecognizable-and unworkable. His denial of the faith-based groups’ right to hire from among their own adherents while maintaining their organizational independence and their creedal integrity may mean that only those with views congenial to this administration will be funded.

This begins to sound like the very situation Madison remonstrated against in his great Memorial and Remonstrance. We may have a government friendly to religion only if that religion is friendly to a particular President’s objectives.

President Obama: Not Going for Bust

by Robert Morrison

February 18, 2009

With his signature of his economic “stimulus” bill, President Obama puts the U.S. total indebtedness just a few billion dollars shy of the total world annual Gross Domestic Product. But he is not going for bust-and he can prove it. The President has sent back to our British allies a valuable bust of Sir Winston Churchill. The bust-valued at hundreds of thousands of pounds-was loaned to the White House by the British government after the September 11th attacks. President Obama wanted the thing out of there.

The President apparently holds Churchill responsible for human rights abuses in Kenya in the 1950s. The President’s own grandfather was allegedly tortured by British colonial administrators trying to suppress the Mau Mau terrorist organization. Americans held long memories, too, of British maltreatment of our POWs and our settlers-during the Revolution and during the War of 1812.

When President John F. Kennedy made Winston Churchill an honorary American citizen in 1963, he brushed aside objections from his own father. Joe Kennedy had been F.D.R.’s ambassador to Britain in the `30s and was happy to call himself an appeaser. Father Joe hated Churchill, and blamed the dauntless British Prime Minister for the death of his eldest son, Joe, Jr., in WWII.

President Kennedy, however, knew that Americans admired Churchill’s World War II heroism. In making Churchill only the second man, after Lafayette, to be given honorary U.S. citizenship, Kennedy overrode his father’s objections. America should do this. President Kennedy, in his eloquent tribute, said this of Churchill:

In the dark days and darker nights when England stood alone—and most men save Englishmen despaired of England’s life—he mobilized the English language and sent it into battle. The incandescent quality of his words illuminated the courage of his countrymen.

President Kennedy was also wise enough to recognize that we needed Britain’s support as we stood against another menace to human freedom, the Soviet empire and the specter of world communism. President Obama may have concluded that we really don’t need the British today in our fight against terrorism. The British rallied to our side in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The President’s first interview was not with the BBC-an invariably pro-Obama news outlet. It was with Al Arabiya.

Churchill was victorious in World War II. But as he stood on the brink of total victory, British voters kicked his Conservative Party out of office. It was a Labour Party landslide. Winston felt stricken, almost a death blow. Trying to cheer him up, his wife Clementine said “it may be a blessing in disguise.” Dispirited, Churchill glumly replied: “At the moment, it seems to be very effectively disguised.”

Soon, however, he brightened. There was work to be done. When the King offered to bestow on him a high honor, the Knight of the Garter, Churchill cheekily declined:

Why should I accept the garter from His Majesty when his people have just given me the boot?”

Churchill set to work on his magisterial six-volume history of the Second World War.

He was the only one of the wartime Big Three-that distinction he shared with F.D.R. and Stalin-to write his version of the cataclysm that claimed sixty million lives. So outstanding was his work that he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature.

Nor was this all. He came to America in 1946 and delivered the famous “Iron Curtain” speech at Westminster College. He was the first world statesman to warn of Soviet aggression. Left wing historians blame Churchill for starting the Cold War, but he is not the one who brought down an Iron Curtain across old Europe.

Churchill spearheaded efforts to re-integrate (West) Germany into the European family of nations. He turned away from ancient hatreds to treat the Germany people with humanity. Many people call Churchill the father of European unity, although we have to hope he would not be on the side of the irresponsible Brussels bureaucrats of today.

Perhaps Churchill’s greatest contribution was his inspiring and elevating rhetoric defending the core values of Christian civilization. President Obama might put away ancient family grudges, as President Kennedy did, and study Churchill’s speeches. The President is now pondering a new assault on innocent human life. He is primed to revoke Bush-era protections against killing embryonic human beings to scavenge their stem cells. Mr. Obama might consider Churchill’s timeless warning: “…[I]f we fail, then the whole world … will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister … by the lights of perverted science.” If that does not persuade, he might read Kennedy’s equally powerful belief: “The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”

George Washington: First in War, First in Peace, and First in the Hearts of Nine Percent of his Countrymen

by Robert Morrison

February 16, 2009

When George Washington died in 1799, the country was shocked. No one expected the apparently hearty 67-year old former President to die so suddenly. We felt orphaned. The outpouring of grief was nearly universal. Even bitter political rivals vied with each other in paying tribute to the “Father of our Country.” General Henry “Lighthorse Harry” Lee of Virginia eulogized Washington as “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.”

No more. The latest Gallup Poll shows a close race for greatest American President. Ronald Reagan tops the list, with 24 percent citing him as first. John Kennedy ties with Abraham Lincoln at 22 percent. George Washington registers and anemic nine percent. George W. Bush might feel a bit relieved.

This used to be the week of Washington’s Birthday. As little children, we would cut out little construction paper hatchets to remind us how Washington told the truth. His father, legend had it, confronted him with a chopped-down cherry tree. Young George had supposedly cut it down with his new hatchet. “Father, dear, I cannot tell a lie; it was I,” said the straightforward stripling. Most historians today pooh-pooh that idea. But when I was a lad, I carved my initials in my parents’ dining room table with my Cub Scout knife. I remember that my father’s pain was eased only by his relief that I admitted my guilt. The cherry tree story always had special meaning for me.

It made me laugh when I read Mark Twain. A hundred years after his death, Washington was still revered in this country. “I’m a better man than George Washington,” Twain told stunned audiences, “He couldn’t tell a lie. I can, but I won’t.

George Washington put his life on the line for his country, not once, but repeatedly. He faced death on the Pennsylvania frontier in 1755 during the French & Indian War. His commanding officer, General Braddock was shot down. Young Colonel Washington had to rally the troops and get them home.  Later, he would tell his brother there were four bullet holes in his coat.

During the American Revolution, Washington led from the front. At Princeton, he charged right into the mouth of British cannons. His young aide covered his eyes with his hat, certain that General Washington would be killed. Minutes later, Washington came galloping out of the smoke, and gave what then passed for a “high five” to Col. Fitzgerald.

After the war, Washington walked uninvited into a meeting of discontented Continental Army officers at Newburgh, New York. The army had not been paid. Some Members of Congress were taking bribes from the French to slow down the final peace treaty. There was ugly talk of a military takeover, getting justice at the point of a bayonet. Washington stepped into the midst of their meeting. Seeing that he had not convinced them with his words, he fumbled in his pockets for a letter, a message from a Congressman that might convince them with its eloquence. Most of his officers had never seen him wear spectacles before. Sensing their surprise, Washington politely asked their patience: “You’ll forgive me, gentlemen, for I have grown not only gray but almost blind in the service of my country.” Knowing it was true, knowing he had endured everything for them, with them, many hardened veterans broke down in tears. The mutiny collapsed. America has never again faced the danger of a military coup d’etat.

With the war over, would Washington return to his farm, to his plow, like the Roman hero Cincinnatus? Or would he use the Army to take the reins of power, like Julius Caesar and Oliver Cromwell? He sternly rebuked Army officers who had urged him to become a king. He stiffly turned aside suggestions that he seize control of the government. Washington went to Annapolis at Christmas time in 1783, determined to resign his commission to Congress. He had always respected civil authority. Amazed at his willingness to lay down his authority, his former enemy, King George III said:

If he does that, he truly will be the greatest man on earth.”

Washington returned to politics, reluctantly, in 1787. He agreed to chair the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. There, he spent five months, mostly silent, while the greatest graduate seminar in political theory, economics, and constitutionalism swirled around him. Only Washington could have been the unanimous choice for the first President. His two terms were not at all an easeful retirement. They were filled with violent controversy. Once, a torch-bearing mob appeared in front of the President’s house with a model guillotine, jeering the dignified Washington. Washington asked nothing from his countrymen but respect. Didn’t we owe him that?

Today, that question remains. Don’t we owe him more, he who gave everything for us?

Ronald Reagan said it well when he left the White House. Warning of a loss of historical memory, he said: “If we forget what we did, we will forget who we are.” Nothing less is at stake in our forgetting the Father of our Country. Without reverence for George Washington, we are not Americans; we are just resident aliens.

Lincoln and Darwin: Trans-Atlantic Twins?

by Robert Morrison

February 12, 2009

The heavens declare the glory of God; the firmament sheweth his handiwork.” Thus saith the Lord. Not necessarily, saith George Will. Washington’s leading smart man notes today’s two hundredth anniversary of Lincoln’s birth with a useful explanation of what Darwin taught. Darwin was born on the same day that Lincoln was born. Historian John Lukacs calls such coincidences spiritual puns. There are some secularists who are trying to make Lincoln and Darwin trans-Atlantic twins, suggesting somehow that just as Lincoln liberated the slaves, so Darwin freed us from religious dogma and catechesis through his writings on the origins of dogs and cats-and us.

Will notes that Darwin “had no intellectual room for a directing deity that wills a special destination for our species.” Darwin, Will points out, “placed humanity in a continuum of all protoplasm.” How elevating.

Will rejects Intelligent Design. “The fact of order in nature does not require us to postulate a divine Orderer.” But is it reasonable for us to rule that divine Orderer out of order?

That’s what happening in our schools today. Discussion of Intelligent Design is being banned as a violation of the separation of church and state. When such matters become court cases, as they invariably do, the invocation of Jefferson’s 1802 Letter to the Danbury Baptists brings a responsory amen chorus from our elites. In Pennsylvania recently, a federal judge cited Jefferson’s famous letter as his rationale for banning any classroom discussion of Intelligent Design.

Isn’t it odd for today’s atheizers to invoke Jefferson against Jefferson? When Jefferson wrote to John Adams in 1823, he came down foursquare on the side of Intelligent Design:

… it is impossible for the human mind not to percieve and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of [the universe’s] composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organised as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in its course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed thro’ all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe.

George Will is certainly a smart man. But so was Jefferson. Evidence of design that Will rejects Jefferson thought “irresistible.” To Jefferson, the idea that all men are created equal was “self evident.” And Jefferson also stood up for free intellectual inquiry. At his University of Virginia, he welcomed debate “for here we are not afraid to follow truth, wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” Those who reject Intelligent Design owe us a reasonable response, not just a back of the hand dismissal or, worse, a court-ordered suppression of debate.

Lincoln often said he had no political idea that did not derive from Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. To Charles Darwin, on the other hand, human beings may or may not be equal, but we are certainly not created.

Americans are free to choose whom they will honor tomorrow. My guess is that more of us will thank Lincoln for what he achieved than will genuflect to either the memory or the lengthening shadow of Darwin.

That “Muslim World” Formulation

by Robert Morrison

February 10, 2009

President Obama gave his first interview to the Al Arabiya television network. He talked of a new U.S. effort to reach out to “the Muslim world.” He’s hardly the first one to use that phrase. Think tank director John Esposito of Georgetown University regularly speaks of the Muslim world.

Question: What would be the reaction from the pundits and the talking heads if the President spoke of the U.S. reaching out to Christendom? That word used to describe the collection of countries in which Christianity predominated. You can well imagine. He would be denounced immediately as a theocrat. The very idea of Christian countries offends the cultured despisers of religion. Or, at least it offends the despisers of some religions.

When I hear Western leaders and intellectuals speaking of the Muslim world, I’m reminded of the late Meg Greenfield’s comments at the time the American hostages were being held in Iran. Some of her fellow liberals were so eager to see things from the other fellow’s point of view, she wrote in Newsweek, that if they were missionaries stewing in a pot, they would try to see the situation from their captors’ perspective.

I miss Meg Greenfield’s commonsensical liberalism. I doubt that anyone would have complained if the President had spoken of reaching out to Muslim friends in the Middle East, in South Asia. Or seeking to repair relations with majority-Muslim nations. But when we concede that there is something called a Muslim world, are we not at the same time conceding that there is a region of the world in which Christians and Jews may not go, may not live peaceably, must suffer dhimmi status if they survive at all?

George W. Bush was often accused of wearing his Christianity on his sleeve. He certainly didn’t wear it on his flight jacket. President Bush invited the king of Saudi Arabia to his Texas ranch. There, he was photographed walking hand in hand with King Abdullah.

I confess I prefer the photo of President Franklin D. Roosevelt on board the USS Quincy back in 1945. There, the commander-in-chief sits with Saudi Arabia’s legendary founder, King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud. The two men look serious, but restrained. The pose is formal, dignified, and correct. There’s no gush. No obeisance. No apologies. Maybe that’s why no one thought of throwing a shoe at FDR.

FDR on USS Quincy

We do need a new relationship. We should speak candidly to the Arab states and to those Muslim-majority nations where some claim to be offended by American conduct. We should tell them of our own happy experience with religious liberty. When George Washington wrote to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport in 1790, he said America must be a land where all enjoyed civil liberty and legal equality. He prayed to God and cited the Hebrew Scriptures: “Let each sit under his own vine and fig tree and let there be none to make him afraid.” This bold statement, regrettably, has not always been true in America. Still, it is true that the government of the United States, in the timeless words of George Washington, “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.” Where in those regions where Islam predominates can this be said to be true—either in history, or today?