Founding Father's Courage - Can we match up today?

[Selene]

How did Barbara say that Ayn had stated it ""There are three rules for good writing, The first is clarity. The second is clarity. The third is clarity."

I think that this piece passes Ayn's test 5 by 5:

"Our Lives, Our Fortunes, Our Sacred Honor

by Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr.

This is the 'official' unabridged version of the famous speech given by Rush Limbaugh's father.

It was a glorious morning. The sun was shining and the wind was from the southeast. Up especially early, a tall bony, redheaded young Virginian found time to buy a new thermometer, for which he paid three pounds, fifteen shillings. He also bought gloves for Martha, his wife, who has ill at home.

Thomas Jefferson arrived early at the statehouse. The temperature was 72.5 degrees and the horseflies weren't nearly so bad at that hour. It was a lovely room, very large, with gleaming white walls. The chairs were comfortable. Facing the single door were two brass fireplaces, but they would not be used today.

The moment the door was shut, and it was always kept locked, the room became an oven. The tall windows were shut, so that loud quarreling voices could not be heard by passersby. Small openings atop the windows allowed a slight stir of air, and also a large number of horseflies. Jefferson records that "the horseflies were dexterous in finding necks, and the silk of stocking was nothing to them. 'All discussion was punctuated by the slap of hands on necks.'

On the wall at the back, facing the President's desk, was a panoply-consisting of a drum, swords, and banners seized from Fort Ticonderoga the previous year. Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold had captured the place, shouting that they were taking it 'in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!'

Now Congress got to work, promptly taking up an emergency measure about which there was discussion but no dissension. 'Resolved: That an application be made to the Committee of Safety of Pennsylvania for a supply of flints for the troops at New York.'

Then Congress transformed itself into a committee of the whole. The Declaration of Independence was read aloud once more, and debate resumed. Though Jefferson was the best writer of all of them, he had been somewhat verbose. Congress hacked the excess away. They did a good job, as a side-by-side comparison of the rough draft and the final text shows. They cut the phrase 'by a self-assumed power.' 'Climb' was replaced by 'must read,' then 'must' was eliminated, then the whole sentence, and soon the whole paragraph was cut. Jefferson groaned as they continued what he later called 'their depredations.' 'Inherent and inalienable rights' came out 'certain unalienable rights,' and to this day no one knows who suggested the elegant change.

A total of 86 alterations were made. Almost 500 words were eliminated, leaving 1,337. At last, after three days of wrangling, the document was put to a vote.

Here in this hall Patrick Henry had once thundered: 'I am no longer a Virginian, Sir, but an American.' But today the loud, sometimes bitter argument stilled, and without fanfare the vote was taken from north to south by colonies, as was the custom. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted.

There were no trumpets blown. No one stood on his chair and cheered. The afternoon was waning and Congress had no thought of delaying the full calendar of routine business on its hands. For several hours they worked on many other problems before adjourning for the day.

Much To Lose

What kind of men were the 56 signers who adopted the Declaration of Independence and who, by their signing, committed an act of treason against the crown? To each of you the names Franklin, Adams, Hancock, and Jefferson are almost as familiar as household words. Most of us, however, know nothing of the other signers. Who were they? What happened to them?

I imagine that many of you are somewhat surprised at the names not there: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry. All were elsewhere.

Ben Franklin was the only really old man. Eighteen were under 40; three were in their 20s. Of the 56 almost half -24- were judges and lawyers. Eleven were merchants, 9 were landowners and farmers, and the remaining 12 were doctors, ministers, and politicians.

With only a few exceptions, such as Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, these were men of substantial property. All but two had families. The vast majority were men of education and standing in their communities. They had economic security as few men had in the 18th century.

Each had more to lose from revolution than he had to gain by it. John Hancock, one of the richest men in America, already had a price of 500 pounds on his head. He signed in enormous letters so 'that his Majesty could now read his name without glasses and could now double the reward.' Ben Franklin wryly noted: 'Indeed we must all hang together, otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately.' Fat Benjamin Harrison of Virginia told tiny Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: 'With me it will all be over in a minute, but you, you will be dancing on air an hour after I am gone.'

These men knew what they risked. The penalty for treason was death by hanging. And remember: a great British fleet was already at anchor in New York Harbor.

They were sober men. There were no dreamy-eyed intellectuals or draft card burners here. They were far from hot-eyed fanatics, yammering for an explosion. They simply asked for the status quo. It was change they resisted. It was equality with the mother country they desired. It was taxation with representation they sought. They were all conservatives, yet they rebelled.

It was principle, not property, that had brought these men to Philadelphia. Two of them became presidents of the United States. Seven of them became state governors. One died in office as vice president of the United States. Several would go on to be U.S. Senators. One, the richest man in America, in 1828 founded the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. One, a delegate from Philadelphia, was the only real poet, musician and philosopher of the signers (it was he, Francis Hopkinson – not Betsy Ross – who designed the United States flag).

Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia, had introduced the resolution to adopt the Declaration of Independence in June of 1776. He was prophetic in his concluding remarks:

'Why then sir, why do we longer delay? Why still deliberate? Let this happy day give birth to an American Republic. Let her arise not to devastate and to conquer but to reestablish the reign of peace and law. The eyes of Europe are fixed upon us. She demands of us a living example of freedom that may exhibit a contrast in the felicity of the citizen to the ever increasing tyranny which desolates her polluted shores. She invites us to prepare an asylum where the unhappy may find solace, and the persecuted repost. If we are not this day wanting in our duty, the names of the American Legislatures of 1776 will be placed by posterity at the side of all of those whose memory has been and ever will be dear to virtuous men and good citizens.'

Though the resolution was formally adopted July 4, it was not until July 8 that two of the states authorized their delegates to sign, and it was not until August 2 that the signers met at Philadelphia to actually put their names to the Declaration.

William Ellery, delegate from Rhode Island, was curious to see the signers' faces as they committed this supreme act of personal courage. He saw some men sign quickly, 'but in no face was he able to discern real fear.' Stephan Hopkins, Ellery's colleague from Rhode Island, was a man past 60. As he signed with a shaking pen, he declared: 'My hand trembles, but my heart does not.'

'Most glorious service' Even before the list was published, the British marked down every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts. Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes. All who had property or families near British strongholds suffered.

» Francis Lewis, New York delegate saw his home plundered and his estates in what is now Harlem, completely destroyed by British soldiers. Mrs. Lewis was captured and treated with great brutality. Though she was later exchanged for two British prisoners though the efforts of Congress she died from the effects of her abuse.

» William Floyd, another New York delegate, was able to escape with his wife and children across Long Island Sound to Connecticut, where they lived as refugees without income for seven years. When they came home they found a devastated ruin.

» Philips Livingstone had all his great holdings in New York confiscated and his family driven out of their home. Livingstone died in 1778 still working in Congress for the cause.

» Louis Morris, the fourth New York delegate, saw all his timber, crops, and livestock taken. For seven years he was barred from his home and family.

» John Hart of Trenton, New Jersey, risked his life to return home to see his dying wife. Hessian soldiers rode after him, and he escaped in the woods. While his wife lay on her deathbed, the soldiers ruined his farm and wrecked his homestead. Hart, 65, slept in caves and woods as he was hunted across the countryside. When at long last, emaciated by hardship, he was able to sneak home, he found his wife had already been buried, and his 13 children taken away. He never saw them again. He died a broken man in 1779, without ever finding his family.

» Dr. John Witherspoon, signer, was president of the College of New Jersey, later called Princeton. The British occupied the town of Princeton, and billeted troops in the college. They trampled and burned the finest college library in the country.

» Judge Richard Stockton, another New Jersey delegate signer, had rushed back to his estate in an effort to evacuate his wife and children. The family found refuge with friends, but a Tory sympathizer betrayed them. Judge Stockton was pulled from bed in the night and brutally beaten by the arresting soldiers. Thrown into a common jail, he was deliberately starved. Congress finally arranged for Stockton's parole, but his health was ruined. The judge was released as an invalid, when he could no longer harm the British cause. He returned home to find his estate looted and did not live to see the triumph of the revolution. His family was forced to live off charity.

» Robert Morris, merchant prince of Philadelphia, delegate and signer, met Washington's appeals and pleas for money year after year. He made and raised arms and provisions which made it possible for Washington to cross the Delaware at Trenton. In the process he lost 150 ships at sea, bleeding his own fortune and credit almost dry.

» George Clymer, Pennsylvania signer, escaped with his family from their home, but their property was completely destroyed by the British in the Germantown and Brandywine campaigns.

» Dr. Benjamin Rush, also from Pennsylvania, was forced to flee to Maryland. As a heroic surgeon with the army, Rush had several narrow escapes.

» John Martin, a Tory in his views previous to the debate, lived in a strongly loyalist area of Pennsylvania. When he came out for independence, most of his neighbors and even some of his relatives ostracized him. He was a sensitive and troubled man, and many believed this action killed him. When he died in 1777, his last words to his tormentors were: 'Tell them that they will live to see the hour when they shall acknowledge it [the signing] to have been the most glorious service that I have ever rendered to my country.'

» William Ellery, Rhode Island delegate, saw his property and home burned to the ground.

» Thomas Lynch, Jr., South Carolina delegate, had his health broken from privation and exposures while serving as a company commander in the military. His doctors ordered him to seek a cure in the West Indies and on the voyage he and his young bride were drowned at sea.

» Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton, and Thomas Heyward, Jr., the other three South Carolina signers, were taken by the British in the siege of Charleston. They were carried as prisoners of war to St. Augustine, Florida, where they were singled out for indignities. They were exchanged at the end of the war, the British in the meantime having completely devastated their large landholdings and estates.

» Thomas Nelson, signer of Virginia, was at the front in command of the Virginia military forces with British General Charles Cornwallis in Yorktown. Fire from 70 heavy American guns began to destroy Yorktown piece by piece. Lord Cornwallis and his staff moved their headquarters into Nelson's palatial home. While American cannonballs were making a shambles of the town, the house of Governor Nelson remained untouched. Nelson turned in rage to the American gunners and asked, "Why do you spare my home?" They replied, "Sir, out of respect to you." Nelson cried, "Give me the cannon!" and fired on his magnificent home himself, smashing it to bits. But Nelson's sacrifice was not quite over. He had raised $2 million for the Revolutionary cause by pledging his own estates. When the loans came due, a newer peacetime Congress refused to honor them, and Nelson's property was forfeited. He was never reimbursed. He died, impoverished, a few years later at the age of 50.

Lives, fortunes, honor Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact.

And, finally, there is the New Jersey Signer, Abraham Clark.

He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to that infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York Harbor known as the hell ship "Jersey," where 11,000 American captives were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food. With the end almost in sight with the war almost won, no one could have blamed Abraham Clark for acceding to the British request when they offered him his sons' lives if he would recant and come out for the King and Parliament. The utter despair in this man's heart, the anguish in his very soul, must reach out to each and one of us down through 200 years with the answer: 'No.'

The 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence proved by their every deed that they made no idle boast when they composed the most magnificent curtain line in history. "And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

— Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr.

These men, and the women who were fully present, but substantially unrecognized due to the patriarchal aspects of reportage at that time, changed the world.

Never before did a civil state come into being with the concept that all rights exists through the individual person and not the state. These un/in alienable rights are present as we come into being. These rights come to us directly from "the creator" or nature as some believe.

Rights exist in man's nature. They are fully present in his/her self.

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

Does all this imply the Canadian folk who did not rebel against Britain were dishonorable? Does this imply the loyalists in the thirteen colonies who were content to remain British were dishonorable. If you take the long view, the Canadians did not end up so badly off. They have just about the same liberties as we do and they did not go through a civil war that butcher five percent of their population. Oh, by the way, they did not have slavery either. They also managed not to commit partial genocide against the aboriginal folk in their territory.

Ba'lal Chatzaf

[Selene]

Ba'al: Does this qualify as "...partial genocide..."? Yes?

Canada Apologizes for Suppression of Aboriginal Culture

June 11, 2008 by Eric Eggertson

A decade ago, the Canadian government made a statement of regret about the country’s long-time policy of forcibly removing aboriginal children from their home communities and subjecting them to cultural cleansing in “residential schools.”

That half measure laid the groundwork for a full-fledged apology to be delivered today in Parliament by prime minister Stephen Harper.

The formal apology will detail the verbal, sexual and physical abuse many children suffered in the government-funded schools that were run by churches.

The government is keenly aware that its words will be closely scrutinized for weasel words that fall short of a complete expression of remorse, delivered with empathy. Some survivors have been invited to Parliament for the event, while others are travelling there on their own.

This is part of a “truth and reconciliation” process that seeks to heal the wounds of a policy that sought to isolate generations of children from their culture, language, families and traditions. The emotional and psychological damage was widespread, extending across the country and affecting the children and communities of the survivors as well.

Commentators are lining up to assess statements by the prime minister and opposition party leaders, First Nations leaders and others. Some argue that we apologize too much.

There will no doubt be some who don’t think the apology goes far enough, no matter what wording is chosen.

Apology by United Church of Canada (1998)

Australian Government Apology (2008)

B.C. Government Throne Speech (2003)

[Selene]

Ba'al:

The exceptions that proves the rule?

"Genocide of Beothuks

Chains of this genocide continue to be seen in other parts of Canada, as people are pulled through time and space. In one particular case, which involved a Tribal group of Aboriginals from New Foundland called Beothuk. The Beothuks were hunted down and used as slaves or "shot on sight by the English." These actions continued until this group of Aboriginals no longer existed, as they were wiped off the earth. The last surviving person in this Aboriginal Tribe, who died in 1829, was called 'Shanawdihit.' Before Shanawiddihit death people were able to learn a little of her language and culture. No longer will the little children be running around and playing. Now we only have memories of a lost tribe and questions of what great mysteries or secrets that this Tribe will forever hold silent." (see http://www.native-languages.org/beothuk.htm)

"In 1857 a church-inspired legislation called "the Gradual Civilization Act" was passed in Upper Canada, which defined aboriginal culture as inferior, stripped native people of citizenship and subordinated them in a separate legal category from non-Indians. Shortly, after Confederation of Canada, in 1874 this first Gradual Civilization Act was used as a foundation to draw from and was used as an excuse to establish Residential Schools. It included "the legal definition of an Indian as, an uncivilized person, destitute of the knowledge of God and of any fixed and clear belief in religion" (Revised Statues of British Columbia 1960)." (See http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/canada.html)

Adam

[galtgulch]

These men, and the women who were fully present, but substantially unrecognized due to the patriarchal aspects of reportage at that time, changed the world.

Never before did a civil state come into being with the concept that all rights exists through the individual person and not the state. These un/in alienable rights are present as we come into being. These rights come to us directly from "the creator" or nature as some believe.

Rights exist in man's nature. They are fully present in his/her self.

Adam

Adam,

It is hard to imagine oneself in their shoes. Knowing the Crown would go after them I should think they would have taken steps to secure their families and property before signing.

Even in our time I have known people who have been unwilling to sign petitions for fear of repercussions.

Curious that John Adams was looked upon as a revolutionary, a hot head, a rebel, by many of the others who did ultimately come around to his way of thinking.

I wonder that Ron Paul is treated as someone who is out of touch when actually he has been more aware than the rest of the men in Congress for decades. Yet he is reviled and ignored to this day.

He reads the bills before voting on them. Virtually none of the others do. He agonizes over whether there is authorization in the Constitution for the powers sought, whereas none of the others pay attention to that issue. Maybe on some level they realize that they would not be able to do the things they want and vote for if they paid attention to the Constitution.

It is time to replace these misguided people in the Congress and the Senate.

Despite our differences hopefully we will prove to be open to listening to reason on every issue.

www.campaignforliberty.com 23 Mar 4PM 126635

And hopefully, perhaps undoubtedly, dedicated patriots will emerge from the ranks of the growing membership of the C4L to put this country back on the rails!

gulch

[galtgulch]

These men, and the women who were fully present, but substantially unrecognized due to the patriarchal aspects of reportage at that time, changed the world.

Never before did a civil state come into being with the concept that all rights exists through the individual person and not the state. These un/in alienable rights are present as we come into being. These rights come to us directly from "the creator" or nature as some believe.

Rights exist in man's nature. They are fully present in his/her self.

Adam

Adam,

It is hard to imagine oneself in their shoes. Knowing the Crown would go after them I should think they would have taken steps to secure their families and property before signing.

Even in our time I have known people who have been unwilling to sign petitions for fear of repercussions.

Curious that John Adams was looked upon as a revolutionary, a hot head, a rebel, by many of the others who did ultimately come around to his way of thinking.

I wonder that Ron Paul is treated as someone who is out of touch when actually he has been more aware than the rest of the men in Congress for decades. Yet he is reviled and ignored to this day.

He reads the bills before voting on them. Virtually none of the others do. He agonizes over whether there is authorization in the Constitution for the powers sought, whereas none of the others pay attention to that issue. Maybe on some level they realize that they would not be able to do the things they want and vote for if they paid attention to the Constitution.

It is time to replace these misguided people in the Congress and the Senate.

Despite our differences hopefully we will prove to be open to listening to reason on every issue.

www.campaignforliberty.com 23 Mar 4PM 126635

And hopefully, perhaps undoubtedly, dedicated patriots will emerge from the ranks of the growing membership of the C4L to put this country back on the rails!

gulch

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al:

The exceptions that proves the rule?

"Genocide of Beothuks

Chains of this genocide continue to be seen in other parts of Canada, as people are pulled through time and space. In one particular case, which involved a Tribal group of Aboriginals from New Foundland called Beothuk. The Beothuks were hunted down and used as slaves or "shot on sight by the English." These actions continued until this group of Aboriginals no longer existed, as they were wiped off the earth. The last surviving person in this Aboriginal Tribe, who died in 1829, was called 'Shanawdihit.' Before Shanawiddihit death people were able to learn a little of her language and culture. No longer will the little children be running around and playing. Now we only have memories of a lost tribe and questions of what great mysteries or secrets that this Tribe will forever hold silent." (see http://www.native-languages.org/beothuk.htm)

"In 1857 a church-inspired legislation called "the Gradual Civilization Act" was passed in Upper Canada, which defined aboriginal culture as inferior, stripped native people of citizenship and subordinated them in a separate legal category from non-Indians. Shortly, after Confederation of Canada, in 1874 this first Gradual Civilization Act was used as a foundation to draw from and was used as an excuse to establish Residential Schools. It included "the legal definition of an Indian as, an uncivilized person, destitute of the knowledge of God and of any fixed and clear belief in religion" (Revised Statues of British Columbia 1960)." (See http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/canada.html)

Adam

I sit corrected. The Canadians are no better than the Yanks. Even so the Yanks took more scalps than the Canadians.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

[Selene]

Yes, but I think we learned it from the Europeans.

"Scalping had been known in Europe, according to accounts, as far back as ancient Greece ('the cradle of Western Civilization'). More often, though, the European manner of execution involved beheading. Enemies captured in battle — or people accused of political crimes — might have their heads chopped off by victorious warriors or civil authorities. Judicial systems hired executioners, and 'Off with their heads!' became an infamous method of capital punishment.

In some places and times in European history, leaders in power offered to pay 'bounties' (cash payments) to put down popular uprisings. In Ireland, for instance, the occupying English once paid bounties for the heads of their enemies brought to them. It was a way for those in power to get other people to do their dirty, bloody work for them.

Europeans brought this cruel custom of paying for killings to the American frontier. Here they were willing to pay for just the scalp, instead of the whole head. The first documented instance in the American colonies of paying bounties for native scalps is credited to Governor Kieft of New Netherlands.

By 1703, the Massachusetts Bay Colony was offering $60 for each native scalp. And in 1756, Pennsylvania Governor Morris, in his Declaration of War against the Lenni Lenape (Delaware) people, offered "130 Pieces of Eight [a type of coin], for the Scalp of Every Male Indian Enemy, above the Age of Twelve Years," and "50 Pieces of Eight for the Scalp of Every Indian Woman, produced as evidence of their being killed."

Massachusetts by that time was offering a bounty of 40 pounds (again, a unit of currency) for a male Indian scalp, and 20 pounds for scalps of females or of children under 12 years old.

The terrible thing was that it was very difficult to tell a man's scalp from a woman's, or an adult's from a child's — or that of an enemy soldier from a peaceful noncombatant. The offering of bounties led to widespread violence against any person of Indian blood, male or female, young or old.

Paying money for scalps of women and even children reflected the true intent of the campaign — to reduce native populations to extinction or to smaller numbers so the natives could not oppose European seizure of Indian lands.

Scholars disagree on whether or not scalping was known in America before the arrival of Europeans. For instance, in 1535, an early explorer, Jacques Cartier, reportedly met a party of Iroquois who showed him five scalps stretched on hoops, taken from their enemies, the Micmac. But if scalping in pre-European America occurred, it was fairly rare, certainly not an organized government practice done for money.

Regarding the philosophy of many native tribes, note the following quote, from a man, Henry Spelman, who lived among the Powhatan people and described their approach to warfare: "they might fight seven years and not kill seven men." (in Kirkpatrick Sale, The Conquest of America, p. 319), Many native societies did not engage in wars of any kind. Native scholar Darcy McNickle estimates that 70% of native tribes were pacifist (in Allen, Sacred Hoop, p. 266).

By anyone's standards, the Europeans were more skilled and deadly in the practice of war. Paying bounties for scalps was just one of many ways in which the Europeans took warfare to new levels of violence."

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/scalping.htm This was a quick search - I have no knowledge of the validity of this web site, but the section that I quoted seems to be in line with the "tape" that I have in my history knowledge.

I never read anything about Greek civilization and "scalping".

If anyone has some proper sourcing on this I would like to know about it.

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

I never read anything about Greek civilization and "scalping".

If anyone has some proper sourcing on this I would like to know about it.

Adam

Which Greek civilization. The Spartans regularly murdered Helots. If any Helot showed signs of being "uppity" or had a potential for leading a revolt against the Spartan homonimoi (the soldier citizens of Sparta), they would likely be murdered. The Helots outnumbered the Spartans between 10 and 20 to 1 so murder sudden and foul was a way of keeping the Helots down.

I don't know of any organized murder in Athens or Corinth although during the tyranny of the Thirty (established by a pro-Spartan putsch in Athens) beating and otherwise intimidation of the middle class opposing the Thirty was common.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited March 23, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[Selene]

Ba'al:

Thank you so much. Knew nothing about them other than Gary Cooper and Walter Brennan used it in a derogatory manner in "Meet John Doe", as in "Out of the way you Helots!" as he walks out.

Wiki:

"The helots (Classical Greek: Εἵλωτες / Heílôtes) were an unfree population group that formed the main population of Laconia and the whole of Messenia (areas of Sparta). Their exact status was already disputed in Antiquity: according to Critias, they were "especially slaves"[1] whereas to Pollux, they occupied a status "between free men and slaves".[2] Tied to the land, they worked in agriculture as a majority and economically supported the Spartan citizens. They were ritually mistreated, humiliated and even slaughtered: every autumn, during the crypteia, they could be killed by a Spartan citizen without fear of repercussion.[3]"

I think this is how O'Biwan the MAGNIFICENT identifies the "productive" and or "rich" as those to be "...ritually mistreated, humiliated and even slaughtered: every autumn, during the crypteia, they could be killed by a Spartan citizen without fear of repercussion.[3]"

When is election day again?

Adam

[Barbara Branden]

Adam, thank you for posting the speech. It's very beautiful and very moving.

You asked if we could match the courage of these men today. I wish I could say with certainty that I would behave as they did. I can only say that I would try to do so.

Barbara

[Selene]

Barbara:

Yes, to aspire to do what is right is all we should demand of ourselves.

Thank you.

Your writing has affected me in wondrous ways for many years.

One of the reasons that I love this forum is that I am able to tell you that fact about the effects of your writings on me personally.

Adam

[Barbara Branden]

Thank you, Adam. I'm very happy to know I've helped.

Barbara

[galtgulch]

Et al,

If this country ever becomes as free as it was meant to be by the very Founders who signed the Declaration of Independence, it will be because of the efforts of those who have taken the trouble to learn from what has become of the country since it won the war which gained them their freedom from British monarchical rule.

That win did not include the recognition of the rights of women to begin with nor the rights of blacks who had to endure another century of enslavement and another century of harsh discrimination which persists to this day to a lesser extent.

The fact that the prevailing ideology of Judeo Christianity is in conflict with individual freedom of thought and ownership of property and values self sacrifice has eroded individual freedom and led to our current massive welfare and warfare state with government's intrusions into business, education, health and personal life. The enumerable interventions have resulted in such abominations as the war on drugs with imprisonment of violators which has fallen hardest on minorities. Interventions in foreign countries has led to hatred of America by many in occupied countries.

I need not spell out the failure of public education. Witness the loss in purchasing power of the dollar as the result of the central bank which is an example of what goes wrong when our Congress grasps powers not authorized by the Constitution.

Just as those who signed the Declaration were treated harshly by many of their countrymen who did not want to change their allegiance so today those who are trying to do what is necessary to enlighten the populace about the cause of our crisis are reviled.

www.campaignforliberty.com 24Mar 10PM 127800, 25MAR 1230PM 127894, 1AM 127913; 26 Mar 10PM 129605

gulch

Edited March 27, 2009 by galtgulch

[Selene]

Gulch:

I just finished watching 24 on Hulu.com hr 10:00 to 11:00.

Can you give me some examples of the "...harsh discrimination which persists to this day to a lesser extent.". Yes?

I understand your over generalizations and I can accept them for now. Your point about the unequal punishment under the law disproportionally falling, heavily, on "minorities" [i believe you meant blacks and latinos...because I know you did not mean French Canadians] during the prosecution of the "war on drugs" has been statistically validated.

I am reasonably certain that most of us would list the top ten actions that should be prohibited by a limited government that we could comfortably give support or allegiance to.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

To match the courage depicted would require the creation of a supportive context. Courage generally follows the context. The context of the founding fathers was created in England itself by people like John Locke. Please read these stories in my grandfather's, Irving Brant's, book, "The Bill of Rights, Its Origins and Meaning."

--Brant

[Selene]

Brant:

I will start it this weekend - looks good to me

http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-bi...&OFFID=se2q

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

That does it. I just spent 20 minutes replying to the above post and--zip--it is gone. I'm not going to do this again. This has happened maybe five times to me in the last several years and it's not going to happen again. Two sentences and I'm out! this is the most unstable posting platform I've ever come across on the Internet.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

To match the courage depicted would require the creation of a supportive context. Courage generally follows the context. The context of the founding fathers was created in England itself by people like John Locke. Please read these stories in my grandfather's, Irving Brant's, book, "The Bill of Rights, Its Origins and Meaning."

--Brant

Tom Paine had more to do with American Independence than John Locke. Americans should read -Common Sense- at least once a year.

Ba'al Chatzaf