Happy Birthday James Madison

Today we mark the anniversary of the birth of our countries 4th President, James Madison. As a kid the only thing I knew about President Madison was his wife’s name was Dolly, and she made great cup cakes.

James Madison was a member of that eternal fraternity we would later call “The Founding Fathers.” At the ripe old age of 36, Madison was the primary author of the united States Constitution; a distinction that would earn him the larger than life nickname of “Father of the Constitution.” James Madison was also the author of many of the Federalist Papers, which many feel was Madison’s efforts to strengthen the true meaning of the Constitution, due in part to early attempts to usurp the Constitutions original intent.

James Madison was an enigma to many because of his political swings back and forth throughout his life. As he wrote the Constitution (based on his participation in the creation of the Virginia Constitution), he originally resisted the need for the Bill of Rights, insisting they were not necessary. He would shift from a strict State’s rights proponent, to a reluctant advocate for a stronger central government, back to his original belief that stronger State’s rights and limited central government should be the order of the day.

Madison opinion of another Founding Father, Alexander Hamilton, would also shift with time. Madison originally looked upon Alexander Hamilton has a threat to America’s new liberty, but would then enter into a restless relationship with Hamilton during the time of Federalist Paper and Madison’s Presidency.

Madison also had an unusually relationship with Thomas Jefferson. At first Madison and Jefferson did not get along very well. But later they would become very good friends, writing numerous, lengthy conversations back and forth to each other. During Jefferson presidency, Jefferson would come to rely on Madison’s advice, especially on matters of the Constitution.

In Madison we find a fair, intelligent, open-mind, yet cautious man. Madison possessed that rare combination of common-sense and intellect, who was not reluctant to listen to others, and when a convincing argument was made, change his mind. Not bad qualities then, or now.
Happy Birthday President Madison

Why Is President Obama’s Visit To Dresden A Concern?

As President Obama prepares for another oversees trip, some in America are concerned about one of his scheduled stops. On June 5 (a day before the 65^th anniversary of D-Day), President Obama will visit the Germany town of Dresden, and many fear that President Obama will offer an apology for a false crime:

Mythologies of Dresden Must Be Rejected

If President Obama offers any sort of apology he will not only be doing a disservice to America, but he will also be dishonoring all the brave aircrews that participated in this necessary mission. To offer an apology based on revisionist history does not serve the best interest of America, and any act of contrition will only serve to perpetuate the myth that America did something wrong.

There are many tragic stories connected to World War II, including Dresden. However, the Dresden tragedy is not of America's making, and to offer penance is nothing more than offering validation to a falsehood, and is an example of the type self-flagellation some in this country feel we should perform to purge America of its sins, real or perceived.

Chavez Believes That “Venezuelan Socialism” Has Reached the U.S.

In Hugo Chavez’s own mind, he believes that oil is not the leading Venezuelan export to America. It’s the ever popular Venezuelan version of Socialism:

Hugo Chavez Says Venezuelan Socialism Has Begun to Reach U.S. under Obama

Is President Chavez's starting to believe his own propaganda, or is there any truth in his statement?

Liberals Lie: I’m Shocked!

For those that have read my blog in the past, and for those that are new to it, you know that I have very little tolerance for the dishonesty displayed by many on the Left. There are two things that I have learned when dealing with Liberal lies:

1. It is important for conservatives to not only known the historical truth, but to know the truth as liberals see it. Many liberals believe what they believe because they are just repeating fallacies that have been offered to them. Nothing shuts a liberal up faster than the FACTS. Facts are to liberals as garlic is to vampires.

2. Never, ever let a liberal get away with a false statement. I do not care where you are, and who it is, letting Liberals get away with a false statement is like letting your puppy poop on the rug. If you don’t correct them, they will continue to defecate all over the place! Now I am not saying that you have to get into a heated exchange. It could be as simply as saying “that’s not true,” and point the misguided individual to the truth. Or better yet, challenge the person to “explain” their statement, example:

SLS (Stupid Liberal Statement): “If we had more regulations, we wouldn’t be in this financial mess! This is all President Bush’s fault.”

ICR (Intelligent Conservative Reply): “Really, what are the regulations now, and what regulations would you proposed that would have stopped this?” Were you aware that President Bush and now ex-Senator Sununu recommended changes that would have prevented much of what we are dealing with now? Have you ever heard of defeated Senate Bill S.190? No, maybe you should do your homework before you hurt yourself. Push for details.

You know you have won when the Liberal says one of the following: “bigot, fascist (or Nazi), neocon (which most Liberals are unable to provide a proper definition for), Bush lover (or fill in the conservative of choice),” or my all time favorite – “I really don’t want to get in an argument (liberal translation: I have no idea what I am talking about).”

Democrats count on the fact that liberals, like parrots, will just repeat what they are told. Liberals also believe that if enough people repeat the lie, then eventually it BECOMES the truth….AMAZING! Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying all liberals lie; some actual believe what they are saying. I am also not saying liberals are stupid, but as Ronald Reagan once said (about liberals) – “They know so much that just isn’t so.”

The Top Seven Techniques Liberals Use to Lie About Conservatives

Who Is Really To Blame For Our Current Financial Crisis?

Which was it………not enough regulation or too many regulations? Are the Republicans to blame, or the Democrats? Is this all Wall Streets fault, or is the weight on President Bush? Financial expert Phil Gramm wrote an enlightening piece on the cause of this crisis:

WSJ: Who Really Is To Blame For Our Current Mess?

Because it is Phil Gramm there are those on the Left who will immediately dismiss this piece, but what they are really ignoring is the truth. And why shouldn’t they, because in the end they would have to place blame where it belongs…..with them!

The Bailout Fairytale

Democrats Ignored Warning Signs

What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

Should DC have voting rights?

The question is slightly misleading. The citizens of Washington DC have the right to vote right now, however that do not have a voting representative in either the House (DC has one “representative” in the House who can speak, but cannot vote) or the Senate. The reason for this is simply. The Capital of the United States should remain as neutral as possible, free of party affiliation; it was this reason that control over what is now known as Washington, D.C., was set forth in the Constitution of the United States (Article One, section Eight).

Attempts to expand “voting rights” into the Capital is nothing more than a political move on the part of the Democrats, and is the exact reason why the Capital of the United States must remain nonaligned and free from political entanglements.

Human Events: What Next for DC?
Townhall: DC Voting Bill Advances in the Senate

Rules for Radicals: Why read the book, when you can watch the mini-series?

For those of us who know our socialist history, we are well acquainted with the “philosophies” of Sal Alinsky. But for those of you who are not as familiar with Mr. Alinsky, or think he was just another vaudevillian comedian, you will find Phyllis Schlafly’s recent article enlightening:

Phyllis Schlafly: Community Organizing Explained

Sal Alinsky was unapologetic in his methods; methods that were fueled by promoting class envy, promoting unity amongst one group of people (“the have nots”) to be used against another group of people (“the haves”). We see Sal Alinsky’s methods being successfully employed by people such as Al Sharpen and Jesse Jackson, and by groups such as ACORN. But Sal Alinsky’s book, “Rules for Radicals,” has also become the field manual for the Democratic Party. Two of Sal Alinsky’s most famous disciples, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, are the living embodiment of Alinsky’s “model” agitators.

There is nothing “radical” about Alinsky’s ideas; they are nothing more than the continuation of the “beliefs "of Lenin, Marx, Hitler, and Mussolini to name just “a few.” One only needs to see the results of each of these individuals’ actions to fully “appreciate” the damage that “community organizing” can cause in the hands of radicals.

Lessons From '92 Offer Hope to GOP

What do 2008, 1992, and 1976 all have in common? Each of those years saw the GOP out of power, serving as the minority. But more importantly, was what happen in the months and years after those defeats; strong leaders emerged and the GOP returned to its Conservative principals:

WSJ: Lessons for the GOP

“…….Republicans are clearly better as a bottom-up party." The closer government is to the people, the better it is able to serve. What Barbour describes as a four part recovery plan is extremely similar to the type of approach that Ronald Regan recommended in 1977, and what has served the GOP well in the past:

1. Rebuild state parties
2. Rebuild the party's small-donor base
3. Push the party to the cutting edge of political-communications technology
4. Convince voters Republicans had fresh ideas

But at some point the GOP needs to stay committed to these four points, and stop “dusting” them off after each defeat. The fact that two of the four recovery points start with “rebuild” explains why the GOP currently is the minority.

What is more crucial is for the GOP, and in particular Conservatives, to resist the temptation of “Counterfeit Conservatives” to govern as moderates. The defeats in 2008, 1992, and 1976, all followed moderate (some would argue quasi-liberal) leadership on the part of the GOP. Fortunately, the Democrats lack of discipline has resulted in only temporary majority control in recent history. Lets hope history repeats itself.

The World Should Be Applauding Israel’s Response Against Hamas

Hamas is up to its old tricks, and once again most of the world is calling on Israel to show restraint, or is looking to America to “intervene.” But what many in the world are forgetting is that Israel is not the aggressor, and it is simple defending itself against an enemy so vile that it would hide like cowards amongst women and children. Israel has stated that this battle will be to the “bitter end,” with the ultimate goal being the destruction of Hamas. Good riddance.

Hamas is not a group of freedom fighters. Hamas is a terror-based organization whose objective is two-fold: the total destruction of the State of Israel and the establishment of a fundamentalist Islamic republic. We are not dealing here with objections by Israel or the West; we are dealing with the fundamental approach and biased declarations of Hamas leaders.

Many news reports are depressingly familiar in that simple facts are twisted, holding Israel responsible for all of the ills of the Middle East while declining to hold Palestinians accountable for their own decisions, which consequential have lead to many of their misfortunes.

Washington Times: Israel Postures to Reshape "Truce"

Zionist Mass Murder: Break the Siege, Defend Gaza!

Reuters: Iran sets up court to try Israelis over Gaza

The Palestine’s have chosen terrorist as their leaders, and have willing accepted an evil alliance with Iran. America’s support of Israel is based on the fact that both Israel and the United States are freely elected democracies, both are fighting for human rights and both are fighting terrorism. The world would be a far better place if Hamas was wiped from the map, which in turn would help to diminish Iran's influence in region.

Sarah Palin Named Conservative of the Year

EXCLUSIVE Interview With Sarah Palin
by Human Events
12/22/2008

“Thank you, sir. It is an honor to be named your ‘‘Conservative of the Year.’”That’s how Sarah Palin began her third interview this year with HUMAN EVENTS Political Editor John Gizzi. She spoke to Gizzi last April as the first of 16 Republicans he interviewed for HE’s “Veepstakes” election-year feature, and then she sat down with him during the National Governors Association meeting in Philadelphia in July. The Alaska governor last week again spoke to Gizzi, this time about her historic candidacy as the Republican vice presidential nominee as well as about current issues and her future. Veteran Republican political consultant Holly Robichaud, who had arranged the first “Veepstakes” interview between Palin and Gizzi, set up their latest exchange December 12.

Speaking from her office in Juneau, Gov Palin set the scene: “It’s five below, not too cold to snow, which is nice, absolutely beautiful and white and crisp,” and then Gizzi began the interview with her:

GIZZI: Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss singled you out for praise after you campaigned for him and he won re-election in the run-off in Georgia earlier this month. What did you do that was so helpful to Sen. Chambliss, who won by a relatively large margin?

PALIN: Georgia was a blast. People were fired up to re-elect him. It certainly wasn’t me. It was him. When he was on stage, people were cheering. I think the rest of the country, those who were concerned about checks and balances in Washington, D.C., were very excited about the opportunity for me to help out a little bit there. And we made sure we did have those checks and balances that came with his re-election. I was very thankful he was re-elected, and very thankful for my state of Alaska. Saxby is pro-development and wants to make sure that our nation becomes energy independent. Alaska can help. As opposed to the positions his opponent had been taking, he can help us progress toward that end. His opponent [Democrat Jim Martin], I believe, would have worked to lock up more of Alaska.

GIZZI: In campaigning for Sen. Chambliss, you brought back a lot of conservatives who had been critical of him for voting for the Wall Street bailout [of financial institutions]. Would you have favored the Wall Street bailout and voted as Sen. Chambliss did?

PALIN: I would have done what the GOP [senators] did yesterday and said ‘no’ to additional bailout efforts of one industry [the automobile industry, whose proposed federal bailout was stopped in the Senate December 11]. Picking winners and losers in Washington, D.C., is a dangerous thing to do when you’re talking about a system that supposed to be based on free enterprise. When you talk about rewarding for work ethic and good management decisions and then consequences are the results of the opposite of that, and those decisions lead to some mistakes that are made in some industries, taxpayer bailouts should not be looked to as the be-all, end-all solutions. But back then, weeks ago, when that initial bailout [of financial institutions] was proposed, remember, it was considered at the time a rescue and not necessarily a bailout. Without having as much information as everyone has now, I did support that initial effort that was going to come from Congress. Of course, we saw [Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben] Bernanke and others appear to change the rules right away, it seemed like, after that initial rescue plan or bailout was given the green light, then everybody in the public, including me, started hearing that the rules were changing on where those dollars would go and what the criterion would be. Unfortunately, that leads to distrust of decisions our politicians make on our behalf and bureaucrats make on our behalf. Now the situation has changed, and I think the GOP did the right thing yesterday in saying, “Look, we still want more information before one industry -- in this case, the auto industry -- gets more taxpayer assistance until everybody knows what those dollars would be used for and how it will lead to success in this industry.”

GIZZI: So you stand with Sen. [Bob] Corker [Tenn.] and other Republicans who stopped the auto industry bailout in the Senate?

PALIN: I do. Once bitten, twice shy. We learned a lesson, at least being amenable -- if not enthused -- to the idea all those weeks ago to the first rescue plan. But then the rules changed quickly, and more information was revealed that perhaps Congress and the bureaucrats in the Treasury Department not having a good grasp on what the problem was and how taxpayer funds would solve any of the problems. That’s caused a lot of concern and caution on my part and the part of the Republican Party.

GIZZI: Indiana Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels has spoken out against the bailout of states that [California] Gov. [Arnold] Schwarzenegger and other governors have called for. As a governor yourself and an active member of the National Governors Association, where do you stand on the bailout of states?

PALIN: Every state, like every community in the United States, comes to Congress with its list of infrastructure needs. Alaska is going to join every other state with a governor’s list. In fact, I’ve looked at every other governor’s list of infrastructure needs that’s presented to Congress. It’s up to Congress, because Congress holds the purse strings, to decide how some of those projects are going to be funded. Alaska’s projects are going to be in the nation’s best interests. They will be infrastructure that will build gas lines and build that infrastructure up that will lead to energy production to allow us to become energy independent. We aren’t asking for things like “Bridges to Nowhere.” But, in speaking with Gov. Schwarzenegger about this, he has said it’s not his intention to ask for a bailout that is based on his state’s management decisions that have led to some problems in that state. In Alaska, we’re fortunate. We have a surplus. We have money put aside for the last few years, waiting for a ‘rainy day’ when the economy wasn’t as strong. We are in a good position, so we are not asking for, nor should we ask for, a bailout from the ‘feds.’ But we will, along with every other state, have our list of infrastructure projects and roads and very basic tools that will lead to energy production.

GIZZI: For my birthday this year, friends gave me the new biography of Andrew Jackson [American Lion, by Jon Meacham]. One of the passages that reminded me of you is when the author is explaining how vilified Jackson was and says, ‘He was the first President to come from the common people, not from an educated elite, and he never ceased to see himself as their champion.’ Is that something you can identify with and do you think the fact you had a similar background to Jackson’s was a reason for some of the criticism you received from some of the punditocracy and the media in general?

PALIN: Maybe initially it is a hindrance for someone starting out. But once the electorate knows what that candidate’s convictions are and positions are, I don’t think that matters. You just prefaced your question with the fact that I didn’t come from that ‘stock’. I got my education from the University of Idaho because that’s what I could afford. It was the least-expensive school that offered the programs I knew would benefit me in my future. My Dad was a school teacher and had four kids in college at about the same time. It didn’t occur to me to ask my parents to pay for my college education. We all worked through school and paid for schools that we could afford. I still got a great education. No, I don’t come from the self-proclaimed ‘movers and shakers’ group and that’s fine with me. It’s caused me, or rather, allowed me, to work harder and pulled myself up by my bootstraps without anyone else helping me. I think it allows me to be in touch with the vast majority of Americans who are in the same position that I am. That is desiring government to be on our side and not against us. And that means, in a lot of ways, for government to get out of the way to allow our families and our businesses to keep more of what they produce, to meet our own priorities.

My own upbringing and what I am today -- with my husband, in a blue-collar job that he has -- allow me a great connection with the vast majority of Americans who live and work and are trying to raise our families.

GIZZI: What was the biggest mistake made in the ’08 campaign?

PALIN: The biggest mistake made was that I could have called more shots on this: the opportunities that were not seized to speak to more Americans via media. I was not allowed to do very many interviews, and the interviews that I did were not necessarily those I would have chosen. But I was so thankful to have the opportunity to run with John McCain that I was not going to argue with the strategy decisions that some of his people were making regarding the media contacts.But if I would have been in charge, I would have wanted to speak to more reporters because that’s how you get your message out to the electorate.

GIZZI: And what was the most important lesson you learned from the campaign?

PALIN: The campaign was 99.9% amazing and invigorating and inspiring. But looking back, there were so many things that were outside of my control. I was in a campaign in which I did not know the people individually running the campaign. So I had to put my life, my career, my family, and my reputation in their hands. That’s kind of a scary thing to do when you don’t know the people you are working with. Now I have all the faith in the world in Sen. McCain and his family. But some of the folks around him I did not know, and so it was a kind of a risky thing for me to put my faith in the decisions they were making on my behalf.As an administrator, as a chief executive of a state, I am not used to that. I am used to proving my abilities by calling the shots. Then I know the buck stops with me. I made the decisions, and I’m responsible. When others are making decisions for me, as they were in the campaign, and I am the one to live with the fallout from the decisions that were made on my behalf, that is something I am not very comfortable with.

GIZZI: Do you want to give me any names of people?

PALIN: No. But they’re folks who have done this before. Of course, I haven’t done this on a national level before.But my reliance on seeking God’s direction in all that I do -- that is good enough for me. And others who have a different worldview and different strategy on messaging and such, I would like to have the opportunity to prove to them that my gut instincts were going to be quite adequate.

GIZZI: Are you getting a lot of requests to speak around the country for candidates, as you did for Sen. Chambliss?

PALIN: I’m getting a lot of requests to speak. But right now my focus is on Alaska and a lot of the energy projects we are working on.

GIZZI: Who is your role model?

PALIN: Susan B. Anthony. I have great respect there for the history. She was a pro-life feminist and those things that she stood for, and she was so far ahead of her time. It amazes me.

GIZZI: You made it clear in our interviews earlier this year that you were not close to fellow Republicans Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young from your state, both of whom you said had a different vision of Alaska’s dealings with the federal government than you did. Were you pleased with the election of Democrat Mark Begich who defeated Stevens and with the re-election of Rep. Young?

PALIN: I met yesterday with Sen.-elect Begich to see that we are on the same page as we move forward as he starts his new job representing Alaska. I thought that Sen. Stevens was going to be re-elected, and it was so close, and that if he were to step aside because he was convicted [on corruption charges], then I would get to appoint a Republican. So I was kind of surprised at the outcome there. It is what it is, and I wish Sen. Begich well. We’ll work well together. He’s going to be in the majority party and that’s all the more reason for Mark Begich and me to work closely together. We will.

GIZZI: Will you run for higher office, such as the U.S. Senate from Alaska in 2010 [when more moderate Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s seat is up]?

PALIN: That’s not in my sites. There’s so much to do as governor.

Read Ann Coulter's EXCLUSIVE HUMAN EVENTS column, Sarah Palin: Conservative of the Year.

Silent Night, Holy Night

Encore Post

There truly is a Spirit of Christmas that transcends the worldly events that somehow occupy mans being on Earth. One such event is war. There is no more brutal expression of man’s ignorance then the conflicts that have littered our history. Yet, even in war, “love’s pure light” will shine.

On December 24th, 1914, heavenly peace did descend upon the trenches of World War One, when the soldiers of the Germany, French, and English Armies castaway their hate, and for a brief moment in time found “Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards Men.”

On that cold Christmas Eve night, Germany soldiers began decorating their trenches by placing candles on trees while singing Christmas Carols. One such carol was “Stille nacht, heilige nacht.” The British soldiers responded by singing the English version…….. “Silent Night, Holy Night.”

Eventually both sides would walk across “No Man’s Land” and exchange greetings and small gifts. Little did Father Josef Mohr, the composer of “Silent Night,” know that one day the words he penned would, even if only for a short time, help stop the madness of war and bring enemies together in peace:

Silent night, holy night
All is calm, all is bright
Round yon Virgin Mother and Child
Holy Infant so tender and mild
Sleep in heavenly peace
Sleep in heavenly peace

Silent night, holy night!
Shepherds quake at the sight
Glories stream from heaven afar
Heavenly hosts sing Alleluia!
Christ, the Saviour is born
Christ, the Saviour is born

Silent night, holy night
Son of God, love's pure light
Radiant beams from Thy holy face
With the dawn of redeeming grace
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth "

Happy Thanksgiving!

Proclamation of Thanksgiving

Washington, D.C.
October 3, 1863

This is the proclamation which set the precedent for America's national day of Thanksgiving. During his administration, President Lincoln issued many orders like this. For example, on November 28, 1861, he ordered government departments closed for a local day of thanksgiving.

Sarah Josepha Hale, a prominent magazine editor, wrote a letter to Lincoln on 28, 1863, urging him to have the "day of our annual Thanksgiving made a National and fixed Union Festival." She wrote, "You may have observed that, for some years past, there has been an increasing interest felt in our land to have the Thanksgiving held on the same day, in all the States; it now needs National recognition and authoritive fixation, only, to become permanently, an American custom and institution." The document below sets apart the last Thursday of November "as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise."

According to an April 1, 1864, letter from John Nicolay, one of President Lincoln's secretaries, this document was written by Secretary of State William Seward, and the original was in his handwriting. On October 3, 1863, fellow Cabinet member Gideon Welles recorded in his diary that he complimented Seward on his work. A year later the manuscript was sold to benefit Union troops.

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln

William H. Seward,
Secretary of State

Thankgiving Proclamation by President Washington

Although Thanksgiving was not official declared a national holiday until the 1860’s, it was President George Washington who offered the first proclamation setting aside a day for the Nation to give thanks for its many blessings.

General Thanksgiving
By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America

A PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houfes of Congress have, by their joint committee, requefted me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to eftablifh a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and affign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of thefe States to the fervice of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our fincere and humble thanksfor His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the fignal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpofitions of His providence in the courfe and conclufion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have fince enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to eftablish Conftitutions of government for our fafety and happinefs, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are bleffed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffufing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleafed to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in moft humbly offering our prayers and fupplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and befeech Him to pardon our national and other tranfgreffions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private ftations, to perform our feveral and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a bleffing to all the people by conftantly being a Government of wife, juft, and conftitutional laws, difcreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all fovereigns and nations (especially fuch as have shewn kindnefs unto us); and to blefs them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increafe of fcience among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind fuch a degree of temporal profperity as he alone knows to be beft.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand feven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington

The First Thanksgiving

This story first appeared in the LA Times:

A time to pay tribute to the Pilgrims of Plymouth Rock.
'Giving Thanks'

It was Thanksgiving, and for the first time our whole family was together.

By Jennifer James
Courtesy of Curtis Publishing Company.
November 23, 2008

It was Thanksgiving, and for the first time our whole family was together. Mom and Dad had to drive all night just to get here, but boy was it worth it! The Grandsters really know how to do it up right. The Grandsters being Grandpa and Grandma. We were all seated at the table, and I couldn't wait to dive into those mashed potatoes and gravy. And the smell of the turkey -- I thought I was going to faint with happiness.

"What's that, Mindy?" demanded my little cousin Sam. He can be such a pain. He is 8 years old, two years younger than I am.

"What's what?" I asked.

He pointed to a little paper cup containing just three kernels of corn beside Grandpa's plate. I opened my mouth to answer and then realized I didn't know. Ugh! How I hate admitting that I don't know something!

Grandma answered, "It is to pay tribute to the Pilgrims."

"But why three kernels?" asked the always curious Sam.

Give it a rest, I thought.Grandpa answered, "It reminds me of what a tough time the Pilgrims had. In the beginning, three kernels of corn was each person's daily food ration." The table got real quiet after he said that.

Grandpa continued, "Against all odds, they made a life for themselves in the wilderness. Let's talk more about it after dinner."

Sure enough, dinner was over and Sam wanted to know more.

" Squanto taught the Pilgrims to grow corn!" Sam exclaimed. He's never going to forget that -- he played Squanto in the Thanksgiving Day play at school.

"That's right," Grandpa said. "But at first the Pilgrims were terrified of the Indians, as they called them. Then one day a tribesman named Samoset ventured into their encampment. He was tall and dark and by many accounts quite handsome. Loudly and plainly he proclaimed, 'Welcome!' in perfect English."

"The Pilgrims must have freaked!" shouted Sam.

Grandpa laughed and agreed. "I'm sure you're right. He had learned the language from English fishermen. For the Pilgrims, life was a constant battle for survival. Later, Governor William Bradford made a decision. Instead of the colonists sharing their crops equally, he assigned a parcel of land to each family and told them they could keep whatever they produced for themselves."

"Then what happened?" asked Sam."

At last the Pilgrims began to prosper. Governor William Bradford wrote in his book 'Of Plimoth Plantation,' 'This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.'"

"Shoot! If you can keep everything you make, of course you're going to work harder. Everybody knows that."

Grandpa answered, "The first seed had been planted for the American Revolution. People were free to practice their religions as they saw fit and were free to keep the fruits of their labor. This had never happened before in the history of mankind. In the words of William Bradford, 'As one small candle may light a thousand, so the light here kindled hath shone unto many, yea in some sort to our whole nation.' "

"That William Bradford sounds like a pretty cool guy," said Sam."He was a pretty cool guy," Grandpa said with a chuckle.

Time to Follow Reagan's Example

Time to Follow Reagan's Example

by Phyllis Schlafly
11/25/2008

Conservatives face a major political challenge, but they can tackle and overcome it as they have done three times before. Three prior examples demonstrate the right way and the wrong ways to put America back on track and bounce back from a disappointing election.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson won in a landslide over Barry Goldwater; in 1976, Jimmy Carter defeated Gerald Ford in a close election; and in 1992, Bill Clinton crushed the first George Bush. Those defeats and subsequent Republican recoveries contain lessons to be learned.

After 1964, conservatives were persuaded to support the moderate candidate who had cozied up to the Rockefeller establishment, Richard Nixon, instead of Ronald Reagan, who was also available. In preferring Nixon and electing him in 1968, conservatives mistakenly overemphasized experience.

The 2008 election showed that popular culture and voter mobilization are far more powerful than public appreciation for experience. Of course, the liberal media covered for Barack Obama's shortcomings in a way they never do for conservatives, but a strong grass-roots campaign can more than compensate for lack of a track record and experience.

After Republicans lost in 1976, Ronald Reagan spent four years working the grass roots, speaking at dinners, answering audience questions, traveling the country by car and train (he refused to fly), making radio broadcasts and learning from average Americans. By 1980, Reagan had sharpened his conservative philosophy in sync with what Americans want from their leaders.

In the period from 1976 to 1980, grass-roots conservatives and Ronald Reagan learned from each other. That's the model conservatives should follow now and educate new leaders.

When the economy and foreign policy fell apart under the liberal presidency of Jimmy Carter, conservatives were positioned to defeat him in 1980. Candidates, consultants and activists today should move outside of Washington, D.C., and discover what the remaining 99 percent of the country wants.

Barack Obama has promised so many things to left-wing extremists that the Democratic Party's civil war may be ugly. Leftists expect Congress and Obama to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), allow open homosexuals to serve in the military and pass the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) to invalidate all federal and state pro-life regulations, including the ban on partial-birth abortion.

The antiwar activists who funded Obama's campaign expect him to pull troops out of foreign hot spots, but Obama later campaigned in support of increasing troops in Afghanistan. All sides of the Middle East disputes think Obama will implement change in their conflicting directions.

The middle class expects tax cuts from Obama, but his socialist supporters expect spread-the-wealth redistribution to the poor. Obama's supporters want change, change, change, but he has been stacking his Cabinet with retreads from yesteryear.

The Obama administration will probably have no more direction or clarity than the Carter administration. Congressional Democrats can still remember how many of their colleagues lost their jobs in 1994 after they tried to push through Bill Clinton's liberal agenda, including Hillary health care, and they don't want to repeat those mistakes.

It may be that Democrats, including Obama, will try to be re-elected rather than to implement the change Obama promised. While they fight over who gets which government titles and bask in favorable media attention, conservatives should educate the grass roots and the potential candidates.

Opportunities to help our nation and please the voters exist at state and local levels for conservative efforts in education, regulation, taxes, social issues and dealing with illegal aliens. Missouri, the traditional bellwether state, resisted the national trend and not only carried for John McCain but gave Republicans three new seats in the State Senate.

In 1996, Bob Dole failed to learn from Reagan's example. Dole remained for years in the Senate in both mind and body, and was unable or unwilling to run a grass-roots campaign against Clinton.

Clinton failed to get 50 percent of the vote in 1996 and could have been defeated by a fresh, Reagan-like approach rather than a rehash. John McCain repeated Dole's mistake, trying to run for president from inside rather than outside the Beltway.

Increasingly, voters believe we have one-party government: the party of the D.C. insiders who socialize together, appear in the media, and give handouts and bailouts to their powerful friends and favored constituencies. Conservatives can defeat that party by campaigning from the ground up, not the top down.

Obama began running for re-election in his acceptance speech in Grant Park in Chicago when he told his supporters that his "change" could take more than one term. Republicans should follow Ronald Reagan's example and focus on the grass roots with a campaign that will be a learning process for both the voters and potential candidates.

The Character Of Conservatism: Part One

In order to promote the strengths of Conservatism, we must embrace its principals. Liberals have a history of "re-branding" their ideals and selling them as "new," or as we saw in 2008, "Change." The reality is that Liberalism does have a history, one of failure and restricted liberty. Conservatism's and Liberalism (Communism Lite) have been around for centuries, the difference is that Conservatism has never had to "re-invent itself" because its principals are time tested.

Where Liberalism plays into the perceived weakness of the individual to justify more control over their lives, Conservatism plays into the strength of all individuals to build a unified community. What Liberals are promising now, is what the have always promised, and have never been able deliver. All Liberalism/Socialism/Progressivism has managed to do is to achieve further restrictions on our sovereignty.

This is the first in a series to help remind all of us the truth about Conservative principals. Russell Kirk is one of the great Conservative thinkers of all times, whose Conservative writings are timeless.


Ten Conservative Principles
by Russell Kirk

Adapted from The Politics of Prudence (ISI Books, 1993). Copyright © 1993 by Russell Kirk.

Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. So far as it is possible to determine what conservatives believe, the first principles of the conservative persuasion are derived from what leading conservative writers and public men have professed during the past two centuries. After some introductory remarks on this general theme, I will proceed to list ten such conservative principles.

Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers. But of course there is more to the conservative persuasion than this general attitude.

It is not possible to draw up a neat catalogue of conservatives’ convictions; nevertheless, I offer you, summarily, ten general principles; it seems safe to say that most conservatives would subscribe to most of these maxims. In various editions of my book The Conservative Mind I have listed certain canons of conservative thought—the list differing somewhat from edition to edition; in my anthology The Portable Conservative Reader I offer variations upon this theme. Now I present to you a summary of conservative assumptions differing somewhat from my canons in those two books of mine. In fine, the diversity of ways in which conservative views may find expression is itself proof that conservatism is no fixed ideology. What particular principles conservatives emphasize during any given time will vary with the circumstances and necessities of that era. The following ten articles of belief reflect the emphases of conservatives in America nowadays.

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.
This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.
Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.

Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to he gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic levelling, conservatives maintain, is not economic progress. Getting and spending are not the chief aims of human existence; but a sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth is much to be desired.

Sir Henry Maine, in his Village Communities, puts strongly the case for private property, as distinguished from communal property: “Nobody is at liberty to attack several property and to say at the same time that he values civilization. The history of the two cannot be disentangled.” For the institution of several property—that is, private property—has been a powerful instrument for teaching men and women responsibility, for providing motives to integrity, for supporting general culture, for raising mankind above the level of mere drudgery, for affording leisure to think and freedom to act. To be able to retain the fruits of one’s labor; to be able to see one’s work made permanent; to be able to bequeath one’s property to one’s posterity; to be able to rise from the natural condition of grinding poverty to the security of enduring accomplishment; to have something that is really one’s own—these are advantages difficult to deny. The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully.

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger. Whatever is beneficent and prudent in modern democracy is made possible through cooperative volition. If, then, in the name of an abstract Democracy, the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction—why, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity.

For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed. A central administration, or a corps of select managers and civil servants, however well intentioned and well trained, cannot confer justice and prosperity and tranquility upon a mass of men and women deprived of their old responsibilities. That experiment has been made before; and it has been disastrous. It is the performance of our duties in community that teaches us prudence and efficiency and charity.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.
The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.

Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.

Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.

Such, then, are ten principles that have loomed large during the two centuries of modern conservative thought. Other principles of equal importance might have been discussed here: the conservative understanding of justice, for one, or the conservative view of education. But such subjects, time running on, I must leave to your private investigation.

The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal.

"the American people would never vote for Socialism, but under the name of Liberalism, the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist programs."

1930's Socialist Norman Thomas

Obama Will Raises Taxes On Everyone

Some of you may not remember the 1992 Presidential Election. During that election Bill Clinton chastised then President Bush for going against his promise of “no new taxes,” a promise Bush broke due to the overspending of the Democratic Congress.

Bill Clinton spent the ’92 campaign stating that he would raises taxes on the rich, lower taxes on the “middle-class,” and provide tax breaks for lower-income. But once Clinton took office, he raised taxes on the “rich and the middle-class,” which sent the economy into a downturn. Clinton did however provide “tax refunds” to the “lower-income.” As it just so happens, the rebates went to people not paying any taxes. If it wasn’t for the Conservative Revolution of 1994, who knows how far Clinton would have gone?

Does this all sound familiar? It should, because “Repeat “Obama is doing the same thing. Watch the following video’s and see if you notice a pattern:

Obama Is All Over The Place On Taxes:

Joe Biden Pipes In:

Bill Richardson Readjust The Figure:

Within two months the bar for the middle-class moved down $130,000 dollars. If you take Obama’s $97,000.00 statement from 2007, and the fact that he voted to tax people making more than $42,000 dollars, the pattern becomes very clear. We are all going to get taxed, which is exactly what every leading economist says you SHOULDN’T DO!

It figures, just when I find out I am rich (according to Obama and the Democrats), I don’t have enough money to enjoy my new financial status!