By: Eric Zuesse

Some of the finest investigative journalists have recently documented different parts of what constitutes, in its totality, a single consistent narrative portrayal of Robert Mueller, as being a person who can be understood only as either incredibly incompetent, or else profoundly corrupt (which latter they all seem to be agreeing that he actually is). This complete collective picture of Mueller, as being profoundly corrupt, will be presented here, with links to all of the journalists’ articles, each of which, I have personally checked and verified its sources. Consequently, I accept as true, and here summarize, their collective account of Robert Mueller — the former FBI Director and current Special Counsel assigned to assemble a case for impeaching President Trump — as being a profoundly corrupt person:

The basic presentation here will be that supplied by the anonymous owner of, and a writer for, a blog for which I also happen to write, Washingtonsblog, who headlined on November 1st, “13 Shocking Facts About Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller”. (That report was also posted on November 2nd at Zero Hedge, which has a much larger audience.) It’s the best report I’ve ever seen regarding Mueller’s consistent background of doing crucial cover-up work on behalf of America’s aristocracy, and I urge anyone who has an open mind about Mr. Mueller to read the entirety of it, because I think that its sources, all of which are linked to and are highly credible, constitute a prima-facie case (that’s at least comparable to an indictment), for Mueller’s being profoundly corrupt. The report includes, among other features: Mueller’s assistance to the Fethullah Gulen CIA-linked global Islamic organization that Turkey claims organized the NATO-assisted failed 2016 coup-attempt, for which Turkey has demanded and the US Government still refuses, to extradite to Turkey Mr. Gulen; and, also, Mueller’s involvement in the BCCI scandal; and, also, his having urged Congress, on 11 February 2003, that Iraq was the biggest state-sponsor of terrorism and should be invaded (none of which was true, and he was in a top position to know that it wasn’t); and, also, his having blocked FBI investigators who were hot on the trail of 9/11 terrorists before 9/11 occurred; and, also, his having blocked the post-9/11 investigators from having access to crucial information they needed in order for them to get to the bottom of whom the financiers behind the 9/11 attacks were

Then, we’ll be discussing Sibel Edmonds’s, “Targeting Michael Flynn & Shielding the Radical Cleric Gulen: Special Counsel Robert Mueller MUST Step Down”.

And, finally, we’ll be discussing Andrew Cockburn’s article “Will the 9/11 case finally go to trial?”

Although the washingtonsblog article briefly mentioned and linked-to the two articles by Edmonds and by Cockburn, the present article will be focusing especially on, and will be quoting far more extensively from, those two articles; but, as was earlier mentioned, the main part of our presentation is what was provided in that washingtonsblog article, which is thus the preliminary to this one, which is an extension of that article.

To start with, here, regarding the testimony Mueller provided to Congress five weeks before we invaded Iraq, when he was being consulted by Congress as an expert on what had been learned from the tortures that the US had authorized to be applied to 9/11 suspects, here is from the key portion of his presentation to the Congress, on 11 February 2003:

Mr. Chairman, although the most serious terrorist threat is from non-state actors, we remain vigilant against the potential threat posed by state sponsors of terrorism. The seven countries designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, and North Korea — remain active in the US and continue to support terrorist groups that have targeted Americans.

Although Iran remains a significant concern for its continued financial and logistical support of terrorism, Iraq has moved to the top of my list. As we previously briefed this Committee, Iraq’s WMD program poses a clear threat to our national security, a threat that will certainly increase in the event of future military action against Iraq. Baghdad has the capability and, we presume, the will to use biological, chemical, or radiological weapons against US domestic targets in the event of a US invasion. We are also concerned about terrorist organizations with direct ties to Iraq. … Northern Iraq has emerged as an increasingly important operational base for al-Qaeda associates, and a US-Iraq war could prompt Baghdad to more directly engage al-Qaeda.

As to whether he had simply been fooled by liars, Mueller had himself participated in the creation of the bad ‘investigative’ practices, which had helped to cause false testimony from suspects. As one official testified, “Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation.” So, Mueller was supportive of President George W. Bush’s aim to coerce (by torturing) suspects to supply ‘evidence’ that Saddam Hussein had been behind the 9/11 attacks; and, as the FBI chief, Mueller enforced such lie-generating practices even though he had been informed by the FBI’s own experts that it would only produce ’testimony’ so unreliable that it couldn’t stand up in any court of law. Was his support of torture really due to Mueller not knowing this? How likely is it that he knew better than the FBI’s own experts about such a matter? And, if he didn’t ‘know’ better than the FBI’s own expert interrogators — as subsequently became clear — then why did he take upon himself the demanding of his agents to participate in producing coerced ’testimony’ that was too unreliable to stand up in court? Isn’t he supposed to be a lawyer, and don’t lawyers know that ’testimony’ obtained under torture, or the threat of torture — or even under any type of coercion at all — is inadmissible in a court of law, in a democracy? Isn’t this knowledge basic? Would Mueller have passed a US citizenship test, if he were applying, and if the examiner were to ask well-informed follow-up questions about the admissibility of coerced testimony?

This is just a small part of the evidence that’s supplied in the washingtonsblog article, showing Mueller to be either incredibly incompetent, or else profoundly corrupt.

The next article, then, to be mentioned and linked-to here will be the one by Sibel Edmonds, who had been fired by the FBI in March 2002 for trying to make public some of the things that Mueller had done in order to obstruct the FBI’s investigators who were on the trail of some of the 9/11 terrorists prior to the attacks, and also to obstruct the work of the 9/11 Commission, and of the US Congress’s more reliable 858-page JOINT INQUIRY INTO INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES BEFORE AND AFTER THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001. Famously, “the missing 28 pages” from that congressional report were withheld from the public until 15 July 2016. The very end of “the missing 28 pages” is also the very bottom of the web-page about “the missing 28 pages”; it’s the end of page 443 of the 858-page congressional report about 9/11; and it says:

In the October 9, 2002 closed hearing, Director Mueller acknowledged that he became aware of some of the facts regarding the Saudi issue only as a result of the investigative work of the Joint Inquiry Staff:

“I’m saying the sequence of events here, I think the staff probed and, as a result of the probing, some facts came to light here and to me, frankly, that had not come to light before, and perhaps would not have come to light had the staff not probed. That’s what I’m telling you. So I’m agreeing with you that the staff probing brought out facts that may not have come to this Committee.”

Senator Dewine: “But what you’re also saying though is that probing then brought facts to your attention.”

Director Mueller: “Yes.”

In other words: though his field agents, whose work he had squelched, had been urgently trying to obtain from their superiors an authorization to launch an intensive investigation into the matters that “the missing 28 pages” dealt with (which was the financing, and possible direction, of the 9/11 attacks, by top officials of the Saudi Government), Mueller told Congress, on 9 October 2002, that because “the staff” of the congressional investigation “probed” into this FBI information, this information that his agents had actually tried so hard to get him to support and investigate further “came to light … and perhaps would not have come to light had the [congressional] staff not probed.”

That passage can also be seen on page 35 of the original, here. (This pdf of it is supplied here because that testimony from Mueller was so unbelievable, that intelligent readers here will be skeptical that he actually implied that Congress’s staff had dug up new information which even Mueller’s own FBI didn’t know about — information that he himself had actually personally squelched.) Mueller was obviously perjuring himself to Congress there (his assertion was ludicrously false, especially because he was the person who had required this information to be hidden and squelched), and this would be one of the matters that a Special Prosecutor would need to be obtaining, from Mueller, testimony under cross-examination, to find what defense Mueller might have, against a perjury charge on that matter.

Here, then, is the very opening of the October 24th article by the former FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, “Targeting Michael Flynn & Shielding the Radical Cleric Gulen: Special Counsel Robert Mueller MUST Step Down”:

General Michael Flynn, Former National Security Advisor to President Trump, is being investigated by Special Counsel for accepting legitimate payments from Turkish companies for researching and exposing Wanted Terrorist and Radical Islamist Fethullah Gulen and his $25+ Billion criminal network in the United States.

Former FBI Director Robert Mueller is Special Counsel in charge of the case. He is the same Robert Mueller who used his position as Director of the FBI to shield and cover up Gulen’s criminal-terrorist network and operations, and take drastic measures to quash a whistleblower’s Gulen-related reports. These previous connections and actions by Mr. Mueller create a direct conflict of interest with his current position as Special Counsel in Flynn’s case, and require that he must immediately step down from the case.


In May 2017 the Justice Department appointed Robert S. Mueller III, a former F.B.I. director, as special counsel to oversee the investigation into ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russian officials.

Not long after being appointed Mr. Mueller began targeting former national security adviser Lieutenant General Michael T. Flynn, expanded the investigation beyond the Russia-Gate probe, and began a furious pursuit of Mr. Flynn’s Turkish connections and his vocal stand on the wanted radical Islamic Cleric Fethullah Gulen.

Mr. Mueller’s inquiries went from Russia-connections to Flynn’s outing of Gulen’s twenty five-billion-dollar sleeper terror cell in the United States. Not finding any substantial evidence against Flynn within the Russia-Gate scope, the Special Counsel team switched gears and started a Turkey-Gate. During the past several months Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors have used multiple grand juries to issue subpoenas for documents related to Mr. Flynn. All this despite President Trump’s demand that:

Mr. Mueller should confine his investigation to the narrow issue of Russia’s attempts to disrupt last year’s presidential campaign, not conduct an expansive inquiry into the finances of Mr. Trump or his associates.

Mr. Mueller’s prosecution team and F.B.I. agents have spent hours going over the details of Mr. Flynn’s perfectly legitimate business dealings with a Turkish-American businessman who worked with Mr. Flynn’s consulting business, the Flynn Intel Group. Why? Because the business arrangements included research for and exposure of the world’s largest radical Islamist network, operating in the United States for over two decades- the Gulen Network.

The targeting of Mr. Flynn through consolidated Obama Whitehouse leaks and one-sided media attacks began six months prior to the Special Counsel appointment. It started with an editorial penned by Mr. Flynn on November 8, 2016, when he became the first public official to unabashedly expose the radical cleric long protected by multiple government agencies- the CIA, State Department and FBI, starting under President Bill Clinton’s administration:

The primary bone of contention between the US and Turkey is Fethullah Gülen, a shady Islamic mullah residing in Pennsylvania whom former President Clinton once called his “friend” in a well circulated video.

Gülen portrays himself as a moderate, but he is in fact a radical Islamist. He has publicly boasted about his “soldiers” waiting for his orders to do whatever he directs them to do. …

And, finally, excerpts will be presented here from the terrific 7-part article “Will the 9/11 case finally go to trial?” by Andrew Cockburn in the October 2017 Harper’s — an article that was mentioned only at one other mainstream newsmedium, “Democracy Now”, and that I believe would have received far bigger coverage than it did, if only it hadn’t been so good, exposing so much that’s forbidden to expose to a mass-audience in America (and so Harper’s itself was courageous to publish this).

So hang on to your happy ass: Here is just one passage from it:

The reason we know so much about the West Coast activities of the hijackers is largely because of Michael Jacobson, a burly former FBI lawyer and counter terrorism analyst who worked as an investigator for the Joint Inquiry. Reviewing files at FBI headquarters, he came across a stray reference to a bureau informant in San Diego who had known one of the hijackers. Intrigued, he decided to follow up in the San Diego field office. Bob Graham, the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told me recently that Robert Mueller, then the FBI director (and now the special counsel investigating connections between Russia and the Trump campaign) made “the strongest objections” to Jacobson and his colleagues visiting San Diego.

Graham and his team defied Mueller’s efforts, and Jacobson flew west. There he discovered that his hunch was correct. The FBI files in California were replete with extraordinary and damning details, notably the hijackers’ close relationship with Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi living in San Diego with a no-show job at a local company with connections to the Saudi Ministry of Defense and Aviation. The FBI had investigated his possible connections to Saudi intelligence. A couple of weeks after the two hijackers flew into Los Angeles from Malaysia, in February 2000, he had driven up to the city and met with Fahad al-Thumairy, a cleric employed by his country’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs who worked out of the Saudi Consulate. Thumairy, reported to be an adherent of extreme Wahhabi ideology — he was later denied a US visa on grounds of jihadi connections — was also an imam of the King Fahad mosque in Los Angeles County, which the hijackers had visited soon after their arrival.

After meeting with Thumairy, Bayoumi had driven across town to a Middle Eastern restaurant where he “accidentally” encountered and introduced himself to Hazmi and Mihdhar. He invited them to move to San Diego, found them an apartment, paid their first month’s rent, helped them open a bank account, and introduced them to members of the local Saudi community, including his close friend Osama Bassnan.

During the time Bayoumi was catering to the hijackers’ needs, his salary as a ghost employee of the aviation company got a 700 percent boost; it was cut when they left town. That was not his only source of extra funds: After Hazmi and Mihdhar arrived in San Diego, Bassnan’s wife began signing over to Bayoumi’s wife the checks she received from the wife of the Saudi ambassador in Washington. The total value reportedly came to nearly $150,000.

Jacobson also found evidence, noted but seemingly ignored by the bureau, that Hazmi had worked for a San Diego businessman who had himself been the subject of an FBI counter terrorism investigation. Even more amazingly, the two hijackers had been close with an FBI informant, Abdussattar Shaikh. Hazmi had actually lived in his house after Mihdhar left town. Shaikh failed to mention his young Saudi friends’ last names in regular reports to his FBI case officer, or that they were taking flying lessons. Understandably, the investigators had a lot of questions for this man. Nevertheless, Mueller adamantly refused their demands to interview him, even when backed by a congressional subpoena, and removed Shaikh to an undisclosed location “for his own safety.” Today, Graham believes that Mueller was acting under orders from the White House.

Another intriguing document unearthed by the investigators in San Diego was a memo from July 2, 2002, discussing alleged financial connections between the September 11 hijackers, Saudi government officials, and members of the Saudi royal family. It stated that there was “incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi Government.”

Back in 2002, Graham himself was already coming to the conclusion that the 9/11 attacks could not have been the work of a stand-alone terrorist cell. As he later wrote, “I believed almost intuitively that the terrorists who pulled off this attack must have had an elaborate support network, abroad and in the USA.,” with expenses far exceeding the official estimate of $250,000. “For that reason,” he continued, “as well as because of the benefits that come with the confidentiality of diplomatic cover, this infrastructure of support was probably maintained, at least in part, by a nation-state.”

I asked Graham whether he believed that a careful search of the FBI files in Florida and elsewhere would yield similarly explosive disclosures. He told me that the inquiry would have doubtless discovered whom the hijackers were associating with in those places, and where that money came from. Fifteen years on, Graham still regretted not having pursued the possibility of revelatory FBI files in those other locations “aggressively.” Instead, he lamented, the inquiry ended up “with San Diego being the microscope through which we’ve been looking at this whole plot.”

And, here is another passage, this one describing how a US Congress that’s usually owned by the Saud family via their and their friends’ lobbying, came ultimately to vote to pass the “JASTA” or Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, even over President Obama’s veto of it:

There was one foreign state threatening to strike back at the United States if JASTA became law. Visiting Washington in March 2016, before Congress began voting on the measure, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir explicitly warned that his government might sell its portfolio of “$750 billion” in US Treasury bonds, thereby crashing the market in government securities, should JASTA become law. (The figure was a wild exaggeration — US Treasury figures showed that the real amount was $117 billion.)

Even with all the threats and warnings, the House passed the bill that September, whereupon Obama announced he would veto it, which he duly did. The battle resumed with greater intensity as both sides prepared another vote. “President Obama, you can’t hide! We’ll get Congress to override,” protesters chanted outside the White House.

Despite frantic efforts by the administration, and ranks of lobbyists for the Saudis, the Senate crushed Obama’s veto, 97 to 1. It was the first and only time Obama suffered such an indignity. Reportedly, he was “furious.” Meanwhile, bipartisan pressure to release the censored twenty-eight pages in Graham’s original report had been building for some time, led by congressmen such as the Democrat Stephen Lynch and the Republican Walter Jones. Jones, once a fervent hawk, had turned sharply dovish, through guilt, as he told me, over voting for the Iraq war on the basis of “lies.” (He writes a letter of condolence to the family of every single casualty of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.) Jones, Lynch, and others on both sides of the aisle held regular press conferences about the twenty-eight pages “to keep a drumbeat going to give the 9/11 families the complete truth.”

With the exception of that committed group, Owens was not impressed by what she found on Capitol Hill. Most of the senators and representatives she met didn’t seem to care who was behind 9/11. “They just didn’t want to be seen as voting against the 9/11 families. So they would vote yes for it, and then try to sabotage it behind the scenes. . . . Washington is an ugly place.” Encouraging this assessment was her discovery that at the very moment they were voting almost unanimously for the bill, a significant number of senators from both parties were quietly circulating and signing a letter citing “concerns” regarding JASTA’s “potential unintended consequences” to “the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” In effect, they were suggesting that the law they had just been seen enthusiastically supporting be weakened.

My conclusions:

Of course, an honest Special Prosecutor would be able to get to the bottom of this, and perhaps my reading of the situation is overlooking some important facts, which are yet to be revealed; but, I think that, at the present stage, a reasonable hypothesis, as regards whom Mueller has consistently been protecting here, can be presented:

President Bush was a buddy of the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud, nicknamed “Bandar Bush.” Former US Senator Bob Graham “believes that Mueller was acting under orders from the White House.” That “White House” was George W. Bush, a friend of the Sauds and especially of Prince Bandar. Everybody knows that Bush and Cheney protected the members of the Saud family who live in the United States, to allow them to escape unquestioned from the US right after the 9/11 attacks. Afterward, both Bush and Obama protected the Sauds to the fullest extent possible, and Obama even vetoed the bill allowing the lawsuit by the 9/11 families against the Saudi Government (namely, against the family who own it) to go forward. Congress reluctantly but overwhelmingly overrode Obama’s veto (because doing otherwise would have been seen as scandalous by the voters back home).

Mueller’s entire record is consistent with his being an agent for both the Bush and Saud families, and this would mean he’s an agent of both the US and Saudi aristocracies, a “fox guarding the chicken coop” before and after the 9/11 invasion. He was selected to be the Special Prosecutor by the American Establishment in order to force US President Donald Trump to do even more than he has thus far done in service to the Sauds. Previously, Trump had allowed, which even President Obama did not, a world-record all-time high $350 billion sale during the next ten years to the Sauds, of US-made weaponry. Though it’s gigantic, the multi-trillionaire Sauds won’t be paying for it only with their money but also with the money extracted from the Saudi public, whom they also own. For the Sauds, it’s a long-held dream come true, to gain all this killing-power against Shiites, in Syria, Iran, Yemen, and elsewhere. And, Trump has come out strongly against the two countries whose governments the Sauds desperately want overthrown and replaced by Saudi vassal-states: Syria, and Iran. But what else can they extract from Trump? Perhaps Trump’s more-direct support for the Sauds’ recent blockade against Qatar (which had recently quit the Sauds’ war against Shia). Perhaps also Trump’s sending far more American soldiers and weapons into Syria to overthrow the Shiite Bashar al-Assad there. But, above all, the Sauds would be seeking from Trump maximum actions to weaken or deactivate JASTA so as to continue the cover-up of who financed and organized the 9/11 attacks. And, what would be the pressure in order to achieve those ends? Impeachment of the President, if Trump fails to come up with these ultimate payments to the Sauds. And, who would be the best person to apply that pressure? Robert Mueller. George W. Bush himself recently went public urging America to replace Trump by his Vice President Mike Pence via impeachment, which is the objective for which Bob Mueller was appointed. The Bush family and the Saud family want to replace Donald Trump by Mike Pence.

If Mr. Mueller will succeed at this task, he’ll have a terrific retirement — that’s for sure.


Debunking NIST’s conclusions about WTC 7 is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

Ok here is what the NIST lamely tried to explain the symmetrically collapse as follows:

WTC 7’s collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

Watch the video below:

NIST can’t have it both ways. If the exterior frame was so stiff and strong, then it should have stopped the collapse, or – at the very least – we would have seen a bowing effect where tremendous opposing forces were battling each other for dominance in determining the direction of the fall. See also this.

In real life, the thick structural beams and “stiff [and strong]” exterior frame used in the building should have quickly stopped any partial collapse, unless the support columns were all blown. At the very worst, we should see a 1 or 2 floor partial collapse.

Freefall Speed

NIST said that WTC 7 fell at 40% slower than freefall speed. But it collapsed alot faster than it would have if the structural supports were not all blown away at the same instant. 40% slower isn’t very impressive — that’s like arguing that a rock falling through concrete 40% slower than a rock falling through the air is perfectly normal.

Again, why did the building collapse at all, given that the thick structural beams should have quickly stopped any partial collapse?

Fires Knocked Down Steel-Frame Buildings

NIST said fires alone brought down Building 7, but other office fires have burned longer and hotter without causing collapse.

No Explosive Sounds

NIST also said:

“No blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.”


What about this,this, this ?

Moreover, as discussed below, high-tech explosives don’t necessarily make the same loud “booms” that dynamite make.

High-Tech Explosive Residues

And why were there residues for high-tech explosives at ground zero (and see this)?

Molten and Partially Evaporated Steel

And what about the pools of molten metal at ground zero for months? And why was the at and under the ground at the site of WTC 7 as hot as the ground under WTC 1 and 2?

And the New York Times wrote that partly EVAPORATED steel beams were found at WTC 7. But normal office and diesel fires are not NEARLY hot enough to evaporate steel. Hydrocarbon fires fueled by diesel (which was apparently stored at WTC 7) and normal office materials cannot evaporate steel. Steel does not evaporate unless it is heated to at least 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Everyone agrees that fires from conventional building fires are thousands of degrees cooler than that.


And why didn’t NIST address the obvious pre-knowledge (and see this) by everyone around and well in advance that 7 was going to come down?

Now here is what the Experts had to say:

And why didn’t NIST address what these experts say?:

  • Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:

“Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition”

  • Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:

“Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds… ? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust.”

  • Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:

“WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?”





Labor Day is a U.S. national holiday held the first Monday every September. Unlike most U.S. holidays, it is a strange celebration without rituals, except for shopping and barbecuing. For most people it simply marks the last weekend of summer and the start of the school year.

The holiday’s founders in the late 1800s envisioned something very different from what the day has become. The founders were looking for two things: a means of unifying union workers and a reduction in work time.

History of Labor Day

The first Labor Day occurred in 1882 in New York City under the direction of that city’s Central Labor Union.

In the 1800s, unions covered only a small fraction of workers and were balkanized and relatively weak. The goal of organizations like the Central Labor Union and more modern-day counterparts like the AFL-CIO was to bring many small unions together to achieve a critical mass and power. The organizers of the first Labor Day were interested in creating an event that brought different types of workers together to meet each other and recognize their common interests.

However, the organizers had a large problem: No government or company recognized the first Monday in September as a day off work. The issue was solved temporarily by declaring a one-day strike in the city. All striking workers were expected to march in a parade and then eat and drink at a giant picnic afterwards.

The New York Tribune’s reporter covering the event felt the entire day was like one long political barbecue, with “rather dull speeches.”


Why was Labor Day invented?

Labor Day came about because workers felt they were spending too many hours and days on the job.

In the 1830s, manufacturing workers were putting in 70-hour weeks on average. Sixty years later, in 1890, hours of work had dropped, although the average manufacturing worker still toiled in a factory 60 hours a week.

These long working hours caused many union organizers to focus on winning a shorter eight-hour work day. They also focused on getting workers more days off, such as the Labor Day holiday, and reducing the workweek to just six days.

These early organizers clearly won since the most recent data show that the average person working in manufacturing is employed for a bit over 40 hours a week and most people work only five days a week.

Surprisingly, many politicians and business owners were actually in favor of giving workers more time off. That’s because workers who had no free time were not able to spend their wages on traveling, entertainment or dining out.

As the U.S. economy expanded beyond farming and basic manufacturing in the late 1800s and early 1900s, it became important for businesses to find consumers interested in buying the products and services being produced in ever greater amounts. Shortening the work week was one way of turning the working class into the consuming class.

Common misconceptions

The common misconception is that since Labor Day is a national holiday, everyone gets the day off. Nothing could be further from the truth.

While the first Labor Day was created by striking, the idea of a special holiday for workers was easy for politicians to support. It was easy because proclaiming a holiday, like Mother’s Day, costs legislators nothing and benefits them by currying favor with voters. In 1887, Oregon, Colorado, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey all declared a special legal holiday in September to celebrate workers.

Within 12 years, half the states in the country recognized Labor Day as a holiday. It became a national holiday in June 1894 when President Grover Cleveland signed the Labor Day bill into law. While most people interpreted this as recognizing the day as a national vacation, Congress’ proclamation covers only federal employees. It is up to each state to declare its own legal holidays.

Moreover, proclaiming any day an official holiday means little, as an official holiday does not require private employers and even some government agencies to give their workers the day off. Many stores are open on Labor Day. Essential government services in protection and transportation continue to function, and even less essential programs like national parks are open. Because not everyone is given time off on Labor Day, union workers as recently as the 1930s were being urged to stage one-day strikes if their employer refused to give them the day off.

In the president’s annual Labor Day declaration last year, Obama encouraged Americans “to observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies and activities that honor the contributions and resilience of working Americans.”

The proclamation, however, does not officially declare that anyone gets time off.

Controversy: Militants and founders

Today most people in the U.S. think of Labor Day as a noncontroversial holiday.

There is no family drama like at Thanksgiving, no religious issues like at Christmas. However, 100 years ago there was controversy.

The first controversy that people fought over was how militant workers should act on a day designed to honor workers. Communist, Marxist and socialist members of the trade union movement supported May 1 as an international day of demonstrations, street protests and even violence, which continues even today.

More moderate trade union members, however, advocated for a September Labor Day of parades and picnics. In the U.S., picnics, instead of street protests, won the day.

There is also dispute over who suggested the idea. The earliest history from the mid-1930s credits Peter J. McGuire, who founded the New York City Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, in 1881 with suggesting a date that would fall “nearly midway between the Fourth of July and Thanksgiving” that “would publicly show the strength and esprit de corps of the trade and labor organizations.”

Later scholarship from the early 1970s makes an excellent case that Matthew Maguire, a representative from the Machinists Union, actually was the founder of Labor Day. However, because Matthew Maguire was seen as too radical, the more moderate Peter McGuire was given the credit.

Who actually came up with the idea will likely never be known, but you can vote online here to express your view.

Have we lost the spirit of Labor Day?

Today Labor Day is no longer about trade unionists marching down the street with banners and their tools of trade. Instead, it is a confused holiday with no associated rituals.

The original holiday was meant to handle a problem of long working hours and no time off. Although the battle over these issues would seem to have been won long ago, this issue is starting to come back with a vengeance, not for manufacturing workers but for highly skilled white-collar workers, many of whom are constantly connected to work.

If you work all the time and never really take a vacation, start a new ritual that honors the original spirit of Labor Day. Give yourself the day off. Don’t go in to work. Shut off your phone, computer and other electronic devices connecting you to your daily grind. Then go to a barbecue, like the original participants did over a century ago, and celebrate having at least one day off from work during the year!


I think he is spot on, great read.
Stephen Klugewicz is Editor of The Imaginative Conservative. He is the former executive director of the Collegiate Network at ISI and of the Robert and Marie Hansen Foundation and has long experience in education, having been president of Franklin’s Opus, director of education at the National Constitution Center, and headmaster of Regina Luminis Academy. He holds a Ph.D. in American History, with expertise in the eras of the Founding and Early Republic.
As I watched a crowd of militant Leftists in Durham, North Carolina this week pull down a statue of a Confederate soldier, I was left not only angry but befuddled by the ignorance of it all: the vitriol of the mob focused on this seemingly inoffensive monument depicting a common soldier, seemingly war-weary and tired, not vengeful and triumphant; the wicked glee of the rioters as they danced around and kicked the fallen, twisted metal wreck; their infernal laughter as they celebrated a false victory over racism. My anger at the actions of the mob was heightened for personal reasons—of which more below.

Pulling down statues is a time-honored tradition among revolutionaries in many cultures, its symbolism reflecting opposition to a current regime. Thus American Revolutionaries toppled statues of King George III during the 1770s; Russians destroyed monuments of Vladimir Lenin as communism collapsed in the 1990s; Iraqis knocked over effigies of Saddam Hussein as American forces ousted the dictator’s government in 2003. Typically, as these examples illustrate, the statues chosen for destruction are those of contemporary rulers, or of those who embody the philosophy of power under which those rulers operate. But statues of Confederates? Even in the Jim Crow Era, this might have been a puzzling choice. But in 2017, one must ask: Where does the philosophy of the Confederacy, if there can be said to be such a thing, hold sway? Leaving aside the monumental question of whether the Confederacy was founded upon the protection of slavery and the promulgation of the idea of racial superiority—and Alexander Stephens’ execrable “Cornerstone Speech” gives one ample fodder for such charges—one must ask these “activists,” in what hall of power is this philosophy represented today? It seems to be held only in the fevered minds of a tiny group of white supremacists—”clowns,” as presidential adviser Steve Bannon called them.

Of course, radical Leftists like these can find a racist under every bed. Reckless and fuzzy charges of “pervasive” and “latent” racism are useful tactics for furthering their ends of attacking Republicans, conservatives (these two groups still occasionally overlapping), and “white privilege,” with their clandestine purposes being the seeking of fame, fortune, and power for themselves. Targeting the statues of long-dead and defeated Confederates is a means of promoting the notion that every white person is secretly sympathetic to the racist views of these American ancestors. By focusing their anger on tangible targets, they make real an enemy that exists only in their twisted heads and hateful hearts. By attacking the past, they suggest that racism is deep-rooted in American soil, infecting everything that grows in the land, and that there can be no racial progress until the evil is eradicated by overturning the very foundations of the country.

Too often we conservatives ask the slippery-slope question in reaction to the Left’s attack on our statues and weakly warn, “Well, if they tear down statues of Confederates, what’s next? The Washington Monument? The Jeffersonian Memorial?” Though well-meaning, the problem with the slippery-slope question is that it seems to concede that Confederate monuments are less dear to us, less of a big deal, for these slaveholders—or supposed promoters of slavery—are indeed morally stained. In effect, those asking this question concede ground to the Leftists. This is a mistake.

Men’s souls are neither black nor white, but gray—figuratively speaking. We should not judge historical figures in a vacuum, ignoring the mores of their times. We should not judge them solely by their inability to rise above their times. We should not judge them by their worst faults. Instead we ought to take the measure of a man in his totality. As my colleague John Groves has written in these pages:

The men and women who have shaped [American institutions] possessed virtues and vices, and their vices do not nullify their virtues…. The inconvenient truth is that America, like all other nations, is the product of both selflessness and selfishness, virtue and vice, wisdom and foolishness. If we reject the important historical figures who possessed the latter along with the former qualities, we must ultimately reject them all.

The desecration and removal of statues of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis are abominable acts, a type of cheap virtue-signaling by the rioters, at the expense of those who not only cannot defend themselves, and whose case cannot be made in the space of the short sound bytes allotted by the modern media. The rioters in these cases have chosen the easiest of targets: Confederate leaders, who were themselves slaveholders and wielders of power.

But the soldier depicted by the upended monument in Durham? Who was he most likely? The base of the monument declaims: “In Memory of the Boys Who Wore the Gray.” He was probably a simple farm boy, the American South being overwhelmingly an agricultural civilization in the mid-nineteenth century. Chances are that his family did not own slaves (72% of North Carolina families did not, according to the Census of 1860). But perhaps he, or his family, did own slaves. And yet did he, and did Confederate soldiers from other states, fight to preserve slavery? As the late, great historian Shelby Foote has said, “Believe me, no soldiers on either side gave a damn about the slaves.” Or as historian S.C. Gwynne writes, if the young cadets of the Virginia Military Institute who followed Stonewall Jackson had been asked why they were fighting,

few would have replied that it was because of their convictions about slavery. Or their beliefs about state sovereignty. Or any of the other great national questions that had been debated for so long. They would have told you then—as most of Stonewall Jackson’s soldiers in the army of the Confederate States of America would have told you later—that they were fighting to repel the invaders, to drive the Northern aggressors from their homeland. That was why Virginia went to war. The great and complicated political reasons for secession, thundered about in Congress and in the state legislatures, were not their reasons, which were more like those expressed by a captive Confederate soldier, who was not a slaveholder, to his puzzled Union captors. “I’m fighting because you’re down here,” he said.

A damaged nearly century-old Confederate statue lies on a pallet in a warehouse in Durham, N.C. on Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2017. Investigators are working to identify and charge protesters who toppled the Confederate statue in front of a North Carolina government building, the sheriff said Tuesday. The Confederate Soldiers Monument, dedicated in 1924, stood in front of an old courthouse building that serves as local government offices. (AP Photo/Allen Breed)

Durham’s Confederate soldier might have volunteered to fight for his state, which had not seceded in fear that Lincoln’s election might lead to the ending of slavery, but in brotherhood with her sister Southern states after Lincoln had declared his intention to invade them for the purpose of putting down the rebellion. He might have been drafted and had no choice but to fight. He was likely in his twenties, as most of the Durham rioters seemed to be. Unlike them, however, his daily life did not include air conditioning, a cell phone, a laptop, an iPod, government subsidies for education, food, and medical care, and leisure time for pouting from a pampered perch of privilege. His life was tough before the war—if a farmer, he worked from sunup to sundown, ploughing, harvesting, feeding animals, hauling bales of hay, shoveling manure. He was not well-fed like the rioters, certainly not overfed like some of them. During the war his life was even tougher, as he battled not only the bullets of the enemy, but the bacteria and disease of camp life. He likely suffered often from dysentery; he ate rock-hard, moldy biscuits often laced with worms; instead of $8 Starbucks lattes, he downed weak, black, stale coffee (when he could get it). He had likely already witnessed, close-up, several people dear to him die—certainly a grandparent, uncle, or aunt, perhaps a baby brother or sister, a parent, surely a fellow soldier, and probably after much physical suffering, given the lack of medical knowledge of the day. The Durham soldier was granted no “safe spaces” from death, drudgery, and despair; he was given no “trigger warnings” so as to avoid having his feelings hurt.

Likely this soldier was much like my ancestor Nathan Dail, who hailed from Perquimans County, North Carolina, and who in 1862 as a twenty-seven-year-old enlisted as a private in Company C of the 52nd North Carolina Regiment. Though I don’t know for certain, the probability is that he owned no slaves and was indeed a simple farmer. One thing I do know for sure: Nathan did not bequeath any fortune to his descendants. And like most men, Nathan was surely flawed. But what he and his counterparts stood for—all those represented by the Durham statue—were duty, devotion, sacrifice, principle, courage, tireless effort, and the quiet heroism of the humble who toil for something greater than themselves: for wife, child family, God, country.

Compared to the rioters who pulled down his effigy, that Confederate soldier atop the pedestal in Durham was a moral colossus.



Once a symbol of national unity and reconciliation, Robert E. Lee, whose birthday is January 19, is under attack in modern America. In the last few decades, his name and that of other Confederate generals have been removed from schools across the South. In his native Arlington, Virginia, there was a proposal by a school board member to expunge his name from Washington-Lee High School. The Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania considered removing his portrait and that of his most trusted lieutenant, Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson, from one of its hallowed halls. Even his tomb on the campus of the college he once headed is not safe from historical revisionism, as the administration of Washington and Lee University recently removed the historic Confederate battle flags that have long adorned Lee Chapel. Like the Confederate flag itself, Lee has become in the eyes of many an emblem of racism and, increasingly and interestingly in our jingoistic age, treason. One professor recently opined that Lee “is important historically because he devoted himself to a cause that was, at its core, anti-American; yet he—among countless other Confederates—was convinced that he acted only as a paragon of patriotism. It’s the essential delusion of every traitor.”*

The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
George Orwell

How did it come to this?

Long the embodiment of the South’s “Lost Cause,” Lee’s place in the pantheon of America’s secular religion has always been problematic. The Nationalist interpretation of American history holds that the internecine conflict of 1861-1865 was at its heart a conflict over slavery and that the Southern states, by engaging in secession and the use of armed force against the federal government, had essentially committed treason. The clear implication of this interpretation is that those who fought for the Southern cause were traitors and, at least by association, racists. Americans have generally agreed with Ulysses S. Grant that the Confederate cause was “one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.”

Yet for most of the twentieth century, such aspersions were muted by Northerners. In the aftermath of Appomattox, there had been talk of hanging Lee as a traitor, though nothing came of it. Among Southern officers, only the commandant of the Confederate prison camp at Andersonville, Henry Wirz—foreign-born and Catholic, which made it easier—was hanged by the federal government. Lee, like most Confederate leaders, with the notable exception of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, never spent a day in jail, though his great estate at Arlington was lost, having been seized by Union forces during the war. It would soon be turned into a national cemetery for the Union dead.

After the bitter period of Reconstruction, a period of national healing came in the era of the Spanish-American War of 1898, when White Protestant Americans again fought side-by-side against brown-skinned Catholics, as they had done in the Mexican-American war half a century earlier. (Indeed, Lee himself earned a superior reputation in that latter war.) Veterans from North and South gathered at Gettysburg in 1913 to shake hands across the stone wall on Cemetery Ridge that symbolically marked the “high tide of the Confederacy.” In this atmosphere Lee became more than a sectional hero to a Lost Cause; instead he was transformed into a national icon of the spirit of brotherly reconciliation. President Theodore Roosevelt praised Lee as “the very greatest of all the great captains that the English-speaking peoples have brought forth.” President Dwight D. Eisenhower said of Lee: “Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history. From deep conviction I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s caliber would be unconquerable in spirit and soul.”

With the civil rights movement of the 1960s, however, Southerners clung anew to the Lost Cause, making symbolic protest against desegregation of schools and voting rights for African Americans by incorporating the Confederate battle flag into state flags and by naming roads and schools after Confederate generals. Robert E. Lee, at least for a time, stood above this fray. Indeed, it was in 1975 that President Gerald Ford signed into law an act restoring Lee’s citizenship rights (Shortly after the war, Lee had signed the requisite Oath of Allegiance that should have led to the regaining of his citizenship status, but Secretary of State William Seward ignored the request.)

The North’s honoring of Lee was based not only on his indisputable military genius and unassailable integrity. More crucial to the Nationalist interpretation, which has always held sway in the North and increasingly dominates the South now, is the image of Lee as the cooperative penitent, the man who gave up armed resistance to federal power, condemned the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, and urged his fellow Southerners to be loyal to Washington. As President Ford declared in signing the bill restoring his citizenship rights, Lee “firmly felt the wounds of the North and South must be bound up. He sought to show by example that the citizens of the South must dedicate their efforts to rebuilding that region of the country as a strong and vital part of the American Union.” He may have been a rebel fighting for a racist cause, the Nationalist school holds, but he saw the error of his ways and properly acknowledged the wisdom of the Union cause.

It is indeed true that Lee urged national reconciliation, writing to a fellow Confederate veteran, “I believe it to be the duty of everyone to unite in the restoration of the country and the reestablishment of peace and harmony.” Lee accepted the decision of the battlefield and, ever the conservative, adjusted to realities and determined to make the best of things. Unlike some of his former comrades, he would not join in resistance to Reconstruction or stir up feelings of ill will toward federal officials or freed African Americans. In the days leading up to his surrender to Grant in April 1865, he rejected counsel that his army should continue the fight and even suggestions that he should order his men to make for the hills and become guerillas. He could not countenance anarchy and needless, endless bloodshed in the name of political principle. Lee was no ideologue.

For these actions, Northerners are right to praise Lee, though his acquiescence was just that. He never repudiated his decision to fight for his “country” (Virginia) and never criticized the Lost Cause with which he came to be identified. In this, he is not the penitent sinner of the Northern imagination. Yet Southerners have Lee wrong too, for he did not believe in secession as a principle and despised the “fire-eaters” who had led the South down the road of disunion. He was a reluctant rebel who in a conflict between competing duties made the only choice he believed he could rightly make. Lee decided that his first loyalties lay with his family and his state, whom he could not oppose in war, and these trumped his oath as a United States officer to uphold the federal Constitution.

The charge of traitor against Lee—and indeed against all who took up arms in the name of the Confederacy— rings quite hollow. There is not the space here to go into a full-blown analysis of the Constitutional, political, and philosophical issues involved in secession. Suffice it to say that the charge of treason can just as easily be leveled at those in the North who made war upon the Southern states (Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution states, in part, “treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them.”) Southerners did not choose war and wished only for a peaceful separation and independence. Certainly, in the particular case of Lee, it would be churlish to condemn him for either course of action that he might have chosen. Conservatives should praise him deeming that his ultimate duty was to his family and state and that he could not raise his sword against his family.

In regard to the charge that Lee was racist or that he supported a racist cause, again there is not room here to discuss the causes of the War Between the States (In using this name for the conflict, by the way,  I follow Ulysses S. Grant’s example in his famous memoirs). Suffice it to say that this issue is one on which honest men can disagree. Certainly Lee himself did not see the conflict in this light. In a letter of 1856 to his wife, Lee had written that “slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil.” Despising revolutionary social change and the rhetoric of the abolitionists, he hoped for gradual emancipation and shared with Abraham Lincoln a sympathy for the idea of colonizing freed African Americans in Central America or Africa.

Lee never purchased a slave in his life. The slaves over whom he had control, some 200, came to him through his marriage to Mary Custis, a descendant of George Washington. Lee became the executor of his father-in-law’s will. Though permitted by the will to free the slaves upon the elder Custis’ death in 1857, Lee deemed the slaves necessary to the financial recovery of the Arlington estate. He thus kept them enslaved as long as he could—the will stipulated a maximum of five years—freeing them in December 1862 on the eve of  the Emancipation Proclamation’s going into effect. Again, Lee believed that his highest duty was to his family, in this case to their economic well-being, and this trumped his concern for the freedom of the particular slaves under his control.

In this, as in his paternalistic attitude toward blacks, Lee fell short of heroism. Of the bondsmen Lee once opined that “the painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race,” and he told a congressional committee after the war that it was his view blacks “at this time, cannot vote intelligently,” though he added, “what the future may prove, how intelligent they may become…I cannot say more than you can.” As Lee’s great biographer Douglas Southall Freeman writes, his “was the prevailing view among most religious people of Lee’s class in the border states. Lee shared these convictions of his neighbors without ever having come in contact with the worst evils of African bondage.”

His conservative views precluded him from, say, taking the extreme step taken by his relation, Robert Carter III, who because of his radical religious convictions freed all 500 of his slaves in 1800. It should be recalled that George Washington only provided for his slaves’ freedom in his will, and only after his wife Martha’s death (though she freed her slaves during her lifetime, as she feared they might kill her.) Lee thought enough of the prowess of African Americans that he was a proponent of enlisting slaves to fight for the Confederacy and thereby earn their freedom. This is also additional evidence that Lee did not consider the war a crusade to preserve slavery, as he was willing to give up the institution in order to secure the greater goal of Southern independence. In the post-war years, numerous incidents were reported in which Lee flouted the conventions of his class and daringly treated a black man as his equal in social situations.

Despite his flaws when it came to his views on race, Lee should be honored as a hero by all Americans and especially by conservatives. His classical devotion to the idea of duty has been mentioned. His resistance to the temptations of power also demands our acclaim. Much is rightly made of George Washington’s laying down of his sword at the end of the American Revolution to resume his status as a private citizen. Lee similarly passed this Tolkienian test when Abraham Lincoln, on the advice of General Winfield Scott, offered him command of all United States forces in April 1861 after South Carolina forces fired on Fort Sumter. Lee declined the offer, which would have gained for him the ultimate career goal sought by every West Point-trained military man.

We must remember that the alternative for Lee was NOT the command of the Confederate armies. He was not foregoing one offer of power in order to pursue another. Indeed, his home state of Virginia had not yet seceded, and at the moment he rejected Lincoln’s offer the most he could have reasonably hoped for was command of Virginia’s troops (an honor that he did eventually receive.) It ought to be kept in mind also that Lee was aware of the superior manpower number of the North and the superior resources of Northern industrialism; the prospects of Southern independence were far from certain. As with the American Revolutionaries, the noose seemed the most likely end for the leaders of Southern independence.

Even when Virginia seceded and war began, Lee did not immediately receive a high command within Confederate ranks. He was relegated to a desk job, serving as an advisor to President Jefferson Davis. He did not receive a field command until May of 1862, when General Joseph E. Johnston was severely wounded during the Seven Days’ Battles on the Virginia Peninsula. Lee then took command of the Army of Northern Virginia, but he would not be appointed commander of all Confederate forces until January 1865. This was a series of events that he could hardly have expected when he refused Lincoln’s immediate offer of power in 1861.

In addition to duty, Lee valued humility. He did not angle for promotion as he chafed at his desk job in Richmond. Rather, he humbly served President Davis, and even after being assigned command of the Army of Northern Virginia, his letters reveal that he always deferred to the prickly Davis. Just as Lee eschewed ambition, so he avoided avarice, turning down several offers in the post-war years to lend his name to companies in return for lucrative compensation. The idea of profiting from the selling of his name was anathema to Lee.

Lee embodied the Aristotelian ideal of moderation. As the deep South seceded in the winter of 1860-1861, Lee, stationed in Texas, was shocked when Texas voted for secession in February 1861; one witness recalled that Lee’s “lips trembled and his eyes [became] full of tears” when he heard the news. Lee voiced his resolve not to take up arms against the Union, “but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in defense of my native state.” When Virginia reversed its initial vote against secession in May 1861—in the light of Lincoln’s decision to make war upon the South—Lee made the anguished decision to resign his commission in the United States Army, concluding that despite his love for the Union, he “could not take part in an invasion of the southern states.”

Lee indeed despised war. Surveying the slaughter of Union troops charging his lines at Fredericksburg in December 1862, Lee commented to an aide: “It is good that war is so terrible. Otherwise, we would enjoy it too much.” As Richard Weaver has argued, this profound statement, “richer than a Delphic saying,” shows Lee to be a true philosopher. In the days after the smashing Confederate victory, Lee wrote to his wife: “What a cruel thing is war; to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbours, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world!” This is far from the tone of a bloodthirsty martinet drunk on the intoxication of his repeated victories.

Twenty-eight months later, as mentioned above, at Appomattox Lee turned aside the suggestions of aides to continue the fight as a guerilla war. The social anarchy and protracted bloodshed that would result were anathema to the conservative Lee, and he prudently judged that Southern independence was not worth the price. Guerilla war horrified Lee because it would bring down the wrath of Mars more harshly on civilians. Indeed, Lee rejected the idea of total war that was developed by Union Generals Grant, William T. Sherman, and Phillip Sheridan, and embraced by President Lincoln. Lee was always careful to avoid civilian casualties. On the first campaign into Maryland in 1862, Lee issued General Order No. 72, which prohibited the plundering of civilian property and reminded his soldiers “that we make war only upon armed men.”

Lee’s action in issuing this order can be contrasted with that of Union General John Pope, whom Lee had just soundly defeated prior to his foray into Maryland. Only weeks prior to Lee’s Order No. 72, Pope had issued his own order authorizing in Virginia the burning of private homes and the levying of fines upon civilians as retribution for guerilla actions taken against Union troops. More egregiously, in May of 1862, Union General Benjamin Butler, presiding over conquered New Orleans, had issued his infamous General Order No. 28, stipulating that “when any female shall by word, gesture, or movement insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation.” In practice, this meant that a female civilian who dared merely to display a Confederate symbol on her dress was liable to be raped by Union troops. Such atrocities did occur.

Lee’s dogged adherence to the traditional, Christian principles of limited war is even more impressive in light of the many atrocities that were authorized and indeed perpetrated against his own people by his enemy. Lee considered the protection of civilian life so important that, as the head of the detachment sent to capture abolitionist John Brown on the eve of the Civil War, Lee ordered his Marines to unload their rifles during their assault on the building where Brown had holed up, lest the hostages that Brown held be injured or killed.

Lee’s amazing self-restraint reflected the advice he had given to a young mother about raising her infant son: “Teach him he must deny himself.” The Christian Lee valued self-control as essential to proper behavior and indeed to personal and public liberty. “I cannot trust a man to control others who cannot control himself,” he said in evaluating his military subordinates. Lee practiced what he preached. He had the rare distinction of being a cadet who did not earn a single demerit at West Point. He expected the same gentlemanly behavior from the young men in his care at Lexington, Virginia’s Washington College, of which he became president after Appomattox. There he reduced the college’s many rules to one simple rule: Every student must be a gentleman.”

As his name and image, and those of his fellow Confederate officers, are removed from shops, schools, and museums across the country, it is ever more important, especially for conservatives, to speak up for Robert E. Lee. A man of military genius and personal honor, a defender of civilians and civilization, a champion of duty and truth, a model of humility and prudence, Lee was perhaps the last defender of the ideals of the Old Republic, whose greying glory was ground under the wheels of the New Order of the centralized, industrialized state that triumphed in 1865. Though he wore the racial blinders of his class and time, Robert E. Lee was a man of exemplary character and remains an excellent role model for all Americans and is indeed a worthy contender for the title of “Greatest American.”

Rewrite History 

to try to change the way that people think about an event in the past, often in a way that is not honest or correct


The need for understanding our roots is as timeless as the human story itself and explains why we cling to the Declaration of Independence…

Most people know that the Fourth of July—Independence Day—is a celebration of America’s separation from Great Britain. July 4, 1776 marks the beginning of the United States. It’s like our national birthday. With the celebration just a few days away, here are four important facts about Independence Day that every American should know.

Fact One: The 4th of July is the wrong day. The reality is that not much happened on Thursday, July 4, 1776. The real “fireworks,” so to speak, happened two days earlier on July 2nd. It was on the 2nd that the Continental Congress wrapped up its debate on the question of Independency (that’s what they called it back then) and finally voted 12-1 (New York abstaining) in favor of separation from Great Britain. So technically, the decision for Independence was made on the Second of July. John Adams, who championed the cause, wrote to his beloved Abigail that July 2nd would go down as “the greatest day in American history, celebrated with fireworks and parades for generations to come.” I’m paraphrasing, but you get the idea. In honor of John Adams and American Independence, I set off fireworks and have my own parade on the 2nd of July each year. My Homeowners’ Association doesn’t approve.

Fact Two: Jefferson Didn’t Write The Declaration …. Alone. Thomas Jefferson was part of a committee tasked with drafting an official statement on Independence. Adams, the head of the committee, appointed Jefferson to draft a statement because Jefferson was thought to be the best writer in the group, was well liked, and was from Virginia (so Independence wouldn’t look merely like a regional, New England movement). Jefferson spent two weeks penning the Declaration, borrowing heavily from John Locke and other sources.

When the draft was complete, Franklin and Adams (both on the committee) made changes before Jefferson submitted it to the Continental Congress on June 28. The famous Trumball painting (above) in the US Capitol most likely depicts this event, not July 4th. Once submitted, the Declaration sat on a desk, largely ignored until the Big Vote on the 2nd, after which it was debated and edited for two days by all the members of the Congress. Early in the day on the 4th of July the Congress voted to approve the document. They set it aside and went about their other business

Fact Three: The Declaration was Not Signed on the 4th of July. Everybody recognizes the signature of John Hancock, President of the Congress. Supposedly he signed his John Hancock so large that even “blind old King George” could read it. Hancock, and probably his secretary, were the only two people to actually sign the document on the 4th of July. After it was approved by the Congress, and signed by Hancock to affirm that approval, it was sent to a local printer for a rush job. These early printed copies were distributed by express rider. George Washington received one and had it read aloud to his troops. If you find one of these original Dunlop broadsides (named after the printer and the printing technique) hidden in an old picture frame, you can retire. There are only about 25 known copies in existence, and they’re worth a small fortune.

So what about the signatures on the big fancy copy of the Declaration? The big velum copy in the National Archives was ordered up on July 19. It was not printed off a press but hand scribed, probably by the Congressional clerk. It was on this later version that the famous document was titled the “Unanimous Declaration of The Thirteen United States of America.” The earlier copies lacked this title while New York was making up its mind. Most historians agree that this fancy copy was signed on August 2, 1776. This conclusion is bolstered by the Congressional Record and the fact that some of the people whose names are on the document weren’t present in Congress on July 4th, obviously making it impossible for them to have signed then. Some men even missed the August signing and added their names a few months later. Rather than a singular event, the signing process was really more of a leisurely collection of signatures when people were in town.

Fact Four: There was no “Independence Day” until 1870. The first celebration of Independence occurred in 1777. On July 2nd of that year the Congress decided they should do something to commemorate the first anniversary of the big event. Being the 2nd already, it was a little late for planning. They decided to do something on the 4th—the day the Declaration was adopted, and so began the tradition. In addition, July 2nd was a Wednesday while the 4th was a Friday, and I’m sure a three day weekend sounded just as good to the Founding Fathers as it does to us today. Many states adopted their own regional celebrations over the years, but Independence Day didn’t become an official national holiday until 1870, a few years after the Civil War.

So why do we celebrate the wrong day? The need for understanding our roots is as timeless as the human story itself. We like origin stories. We might even call them myths. We like being able to pinpoint “the place and time where it all began.” It’s the same fascination that draws us to visit our childhood home even though we don’t remember living in it. This helps explain our fixation on the Declaration of Independence. Though the decision for Independence was made on the 2nd, the birth announcement didn’t come until two days later. We cling to the Declaration because it gives us roots and legitimacy and stands as our national birth certificate—signed by all 56 of our fathers. And so the 4th of July, rather than the 2nd, becomes the day we commemorate the birth of the United States. Thomas Jefferson gets all the credit while John Adams gets pushed out of the celebration. Ironically, without Adams, Independence and the Declaration itself might never have happened.

Happy Birthday, America! I’ll be at the party on the 4th to celebrate Jefferson and the Declaration, but I’ll get started two days earlier with a toast to John Adams and American Independence.




From The The Federalist Papers

Kimberly Morin writes that the Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the worst federal government departments in the history of the country. Not only are they over bloated and wasteful but they literally neglect the medical care of veterans who have served the United States.

Report. Once again, another story has come out thanks to the Government Accountability Office (GOA) but even they can’t figure out what exactly 346 workers are doing who are being paid by taxpayers. From The Washington Examiner:

An estimated 346 employees in the Department of Veterans Affairs do no actual work for taxpayers. Instead, they spend all of their time doing work on behalf of their union while drawing a federal salary, a practice known as “official time.”

That’s according to a report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. But exactly what those VA workers are doing and why so many are doing it is not clear. The VA doesn’t track that, and the GAO report offers no clue.

Union hacks. It’s often written into union contracts that union leaders are able to take time off to conduct union work. However, in this case it appears these workers aren’t doing any work at all for veterans. They are only doing work for unions. They are being paid using taxpayer dollars to do nothing for taxpayers. From The Washington Examiner:

“The lack of accountability at the VA when it comes to monitoring official time suggests it might be worse,” said Arrington, who has introduced legislation that would require the department to track the use of official time, among other reforms.

Pointing to the waiting list scandals at the department, Arrington said the official time situation is reflective of the “broken culture at the heart of the VA” and adds, “I haven’t heard one good, acceptable reason why the practice has continued.”

Why this matters? Not only are veterans suffering from lack of care thanks to poor service from the V.A. but no one can seem to even keep track of what the hell is going on:

“Employees spent approximately 1,057,00 hours on official time for union representation activities … In addition, the data show that 346 employees spent 100 percent of their time on official time,” the GAO found in a January report.

It is possible that even those figures are conservative. The GAO said the said the VA’s poor monitoring meant the data was “inconsistent and not reliable.”

This is disgusting and shouldn’t be allowed in any publicly-funded agency. If you want to be a union leader, do it on your own time and have the union reimburse you.

This is yet another valid reason why public sector unions should not exist. There is no accountability. They do whatever they want on the taxpayer dime, and politicians they buy into office don’t hold them to any standards.



Robert Gehl reports that Europe is under siege

The number of terrorist attacks on the continent is simply staggering; not to mention the ongoing riots and violent demonstrations in Europe by refugees and immigrants. What we have here is a continent that is reeling from its own liberal migration policies.

The deadly terrorist bombing at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England is just the latest violent incident in recent years. Chronologically, here are some of the more recent attacks:


April 7, 2017

A man driving a hijacked beer truck struck pedestrians at a Stockholm department store, killing 4 people.

March 22, 2017

A man drives his rented SUV into pedestrians at London’s Westminster Bridge, killing four people. The attacker then stabbed a police officer to death.

Feb. 22, 2017

Riots broke out in a predominantly immigrant neighborhood of Stockholm Monday night, as residents clashed with police officers and set vehicles on fire, Swedish police say.

Jan. 3, 2017

Riot police fought running battles with a mob of more than a thousand migrants who tried to storm Europe’s borders and force their way into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta.

Dec. 19, 2016

A hijacked truck plows through a Christmas market in Berlin, killing 12.

Nov. 23, 2016

1,500 migrants clashed with police in Bulgaria’s largest refugee center, two days after the facility was sealed off following reports of an alleged infection outbreak.

July 14, 2016

A truck driver targets Bastille Day revelers in Nice, France, killing 86.

March 22, 2016

Suicide attacks on the Brussels airport and subway kill 32 and injure hundreds. The perpetrators have been closely linked to the group that carried out earlier attacks in Paris.

Nov. 13, 2015

Islamic State-linked extremists attack the Bataclan concert hall and other sites across Paris, killing 130 people. A key suspect in the attack, 26-year-old Salah Abdeslam, is arrested in Brussels on March 18, 2016.

April 7, 2017

A man driving a hijacked beer truck struck pedestrians at a Stockholm department store, killing 4 people.

March 22, 2017

A man drives his rented SUV into pedestrians at London’s Westminster Bridge, killing four people. The attacker then stabbed a police officer to death.

Feb. 22, 2017

Riots broke out in a predominantly immigrant neighborhood of Stockholm Monday night, as residents clashed with police officers and set vehicles on fire, Swedish police say.

Jan. 3, 2017

Riot police fought running battles with a mob of more than a thousand migrants who tried to storm Europe’s borders and force their way into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta.

Dec. 19, 2016

A hijacked truck plows through a Christmas market in Berlin, killing 12.

Nov. 23, 2016

1,500 migrants clashed with police in Bulgaria’s largest refugee center, two days after the facility was sealed off following reports of an alleged infection outbreak.

July 14, 2016

A truck driver targets Bastille Day revelers in Nice, France, killing 86.

March 22, 2016

Suicide attacks on the Brussels airport and subway kill 32 and injure hundreds. The perpetrators have been closely linked to the group that carried out earlier attacks in Paris.

Nov. 13, 2015

Islamic State-linked extremists attack the Bataclan concert hall and other sites across Paris, killing 130 people. A key suspect in the attack, 26-year-old Salah Abdeslam, is arrested in Brussels on March 18, 2016.

Feb. 14, 2015

A gunman kills Danish filmmaker Finn Noergaard and wounds three police officers in Copenhagen. A day later the gunman, Omar El-Hussein, attacks a synagogue, killing a Jewish guard and wounding two police officers before being shot dead.

Jan. 7-9, 2015

A gun assault on the Paris offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and an attack on a kosher grocery store kills 17 people. Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula claims responsibility for the attack, saying it was in revenge for Charlie Hebdo’s depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.

October 21, 2014

Riot police fired tear gas to end repeated clashes on Tuesday among hundreds of migrants in Calais who launched their second attempt in two days to storm lorries bound for Britain.

May 24, 2014

Four people are killed at the Jewish Museum in Brussels by an intruder with a Kalashnikov. The accused is a former French fighter linked to the Islamic State group in Syria.

May 22, 2013

Two al-Qaida-inspired extremists run down British soldier Lee Rigby in a London street, then stab and hack him to death.

March 2012

A gunman claiming links to al-Qaida kills three Jewish schoolchildren, a rabbi and three paratroopers in Toulouse, southern France.

July 22, 2011

Anti-Muslim extremist Anders Behring Breivik plants a bomb in Oslo then launches a shooting massacre on a youth camp on Norway’s Utoya island, killing 77 people, many of them teenagers.

Nov. 2, 2011

The offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris are firebombed after the satirical magazine runs a cover featuring a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad. No one is injured.

March 2, 2011

Islamic extremist Arid Uka shoots dead two U.S. airmen and injures two others at Frankfurt airport after apparently being inspired by a fake internet video purporting to show American atrocities in Afghanistan.

July 7, 2005

52 commuters are killed in London when four al Qaida-inspired suicide bombers blow themselves up on three subway trains and a bus.

March 11, 2004

Bombs on four Madrid commuter trains in the morning rush hour kill 191 people.



May 23, 2017 by Michael Snyder

he left just can’t seem to understand that Islamic terrorists are going to try to destroy our way of life no matter how nice we are to them. On Monday night, a bombing at Ariana Grande’s Manchester concert made headlines all over the globe. 22 people, including an 8-year-old girl, were killed and 59 were wounded. It is exactly the sort of “soft target” attack that I have been warning about, and ISIS quickly claimed responsibility. Within the last 30 days, there have been 169 Islamic terror attacks in a total of 24 different countries. Last year, the number of global terror attacks was up 25 percent from the year before, and this year we will almost certainly see another all-time record high. But many liberals never even want to use the phrase “Islamic terror” because it doesn’t fit their agenda.

In fact, many liberals immediately jumped on Twitter after the terror attack in Manchester and started warning about the spread of “Islamophobia”.

For example, Quen Took posted the following tweet…

Don’t use incident as an excuse for Islamophobia. Stand with our beautiful Muslim siblings & don’t scapegoat innocent people.

And TheBardAsPundit warned that engaging in “Islamophobia” may provoke more terror attacks…

I have a good idea. Let’s piss off more Muslims with mindless Islamophobia. That should help.

Of course the mainstream media here in the United States attempted to put their own politically-correct spin on things. On ABC, there was far more concern about “anti-Islamic backlash” than there was for the victims of the attack…

Despite the horrific nature and impact, ABC was eager to downplay the motive behind the deadly attack. In fact, ABC was more worried about the perpetrators than the victims, warning that this could provoke an “anti-Islamic backlash” across Europe.

And on the Today show on NBC, counter-terrorism “expert” Richard Clarke seemed to blame President Trump for the rise in terror attacks that we have been seeing…

They have a good police and security service and so do we, but we have no ostracized, we’ve embraced our Muslim Americans. That’s why the talk against Muslims in the last year in the campaign and since has been very counterproductive. The only way to solve this problem is to have everyone think they’re on the same side.

Yes, let’s follow Clarke’s advice and try to convince the Islamic terrorists that we are on their side.

That should work.

Until the entire western world is willing to embrace Islam and swear allegiance to Allah, the radical Islamists will never stop. Their faith tells them that it is their destiny to rule the world, and they will never rest until they have achieved that goal.

Unfortunately, most people believe what they want to believe, and what most politically-correct pundits in the western world want to believe is that radical Islam is not the problem.

On CNN, one “analyst” even suggested that the attack in Manchester may have been a “false flag” conducted by “right-wing” extremists…

CNN “Terror Analyst” Paul Cruickshank said Monday night on Anderson Cooper’s AC360 that the bombing attack in Manchester could be a “right-wing” “false flag.”

“It must also be noted that in recent months in Europe, there’s been a number of false flag plots where right-wing extremists have tried to frame Islamists for terrorism,” Cruickshank said. “We have seen that in Germany in recent weeks.”

Of course that theory didn’t last long once the authorities identified the attacker as a Muslim.

It is absolutely imperative that we understand the mindset of these Islamic radicals. If they could press a button that would annihilate all non-Muslims on the entire planet, many of them would do it.

Some of the more “moderate” jihadists would prefer to give everyone a chance to convert to Islam first before killing them, but the end result would be the same.

There is no possible way to compromise with people that are intent on exterminating you. And as they get their hands on more powerful weapons, the size and scale of these terror attacks is going to increase exponentially.

We must make every effort to defeat terror groups such as ISIS militarily, but even more importantly we must seek to turn hearts and minds away from radical Islam all over the planet. It is a bankrupt worldview, and we need to show those that are following radical Islam that there is a much better way.

Unfortunately, nations all over the western world are turning away from the values and the principles that they were founded upon, and so western leaders have very little to offer at this point.

One recent report found that Islam is on track to surpass Christianity and will become the largest faith on the entire planet by the year 2070. Violence and bloodshed will continue to be used by jihadists to advance their faith, but another way that the goal of global domination is moved forward is by migration. Paul Nehlen, the author of an upcoming book entitled “Wage The Battle”, recently explained how this works

“Hijrah means ‘migration in the name of Allah,’” said Nehlen, who explained that the ultimate goal is to populate non-Muslim nations to the extent needed to impose Shariah law.

“The hijrah is one way of spreading the Shariah, spreading the law of Islam, this political doctrine, to land where Islam isn’t,” Nehlen said. “That’s what this documentary covers. It talks about the bigger picture here of what we saw here. It stems directly from their fundamental texts.”

He said hijrah is another method by which Muslims can earn their salvation.

“Quite unlike a Christian, who believes you can’t earn your way in and only by the grace of God are you granted access to heaven through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, Muslims believe they can earn their way in,” Nehlen said. “They believe they have to earn their way in.”

Radical Islam has declared war on us, but most liberals don’t even think that we are in a war.

And in any war, if one side chooses not to fight the other side wins by default.

The western world desperately needs to wake up, because we are in a life or death battle, and right now this fight is only in the early rounds.


“If Even 20% Of What This Guy Says Is True…”

The video below features a keynote by Dr. Robert Duncan regarding what can only be described as our coming hive mind control grid. He isn’t just talking about advances in transhumanism, the singularity, or artificial intelligence. He’s talking about how to control the minds of everyone on the planet and evolving humanity in a technological sense… whether they like it or not.

Duncan professes with shame that he worked on “Voice of God” weapons for the US Department of Defense, [(DARPA)  Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] weapons which can make people think they are hearing voices in their heads in an attempt to control them. He says such weapons were tested back during Desert Storm and were quite effective at getting Iraqi soldiers to lay down arms without a shot fired.

And that’s just what they had 20+ years ago. Can you imagine what they’re working on today?

Duncan also touches on Project Blue Beam, remote neural monitoring, smart dust, and electronic telepathy technology which uses extremely low frequency waves.

Despite attempting multiple times to put a “positive spin” on this information as he nervously delivers it, what this man is saying really can’t be spun in a positive way, not with these kinds of technology in the hands of the military-industrial complex President Eisenhower once gravely warned us about.

Duncan notes scientists “are brainwashed into believing that everything we are doing is of benefit to mankind, but look who pays our bills? The military. It’s all for war, it’s all for control, for government control…”

If even 20% of what this guy has to say is true…  Just… you’ve got to see this for yourself.

It’s difficult to accept that there are unseen powers, motivated by their own greed and lust for power, that are doing us harm disguised as good. It is only when we become aware of how we are being harmed and change our shopping habits — hurting their bottom line — that they change their tactics.