Here's Glenn Beck's interview with author Jonah Goldberg, who wrote the GREAT book "Liberal Fascism." A Must Read!
Monday, July 27, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Many Declaration Signers Paid Dearly for their Cause
by Tom Joyce
Mount Airy News
The Fourth of July is one of the holidays I value the most. For one thing, it is a uniquely American observance, since it honors the very foundation of our existence as a nation.
It is a time that stresses basic values such as freedom and patriotism, which thankfully the populace can still revel in without requiring a trip to the card store, flower shop or jewelers.
But when we use such frequently uttered phrases as “celebrating our liberty,” what exactly does that mean, and what should it mean?
While July 4 might signify Independence Day parades or communitywide gatherings, fireworks displays, stuffing one’s face with hot dogs and all-around flag-waving, modern joys surrounding Fourth activities are far removed from what many signers of the Declaration of Independence endured.
Of course, the sugar-coated history portrayed in textbooks conjures up images of a bunch of Colonial dudes with funny hair simply getting together in a big room in Philadelphia, and slapping their John Henrys (or John Hancocks) on a piece of paper.
But contrary to popular belief, they then didn’t all just go over to Samuel Adams’ place and drink beer to celebrate what they had done.
Though participants such as Thomas Jefferson would advance to greater glory, it generally was anything but fun and games for the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. After all, these colonists had just outwardly defied the greatest military power on Earth at the time, the British.
And the crown didn’t take this act of rebellion lightly, but considered it a blatant act of treason by the signers, who then were systematically dealt with accordingly in any way the enemy could, including the penalty of death if captured. Signers ended up sacrificing lives, families, fortunes and homes.
Various historical accounts show that five of those 56 brave souls were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died.
Another nine Declaration signers later would succumb to wounds, disease or other causes in the Revolutionary War. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned, while two lost sons in the war and another two had sons captured.
Francis Lewis, one of the signers from New York, had his home and properties destroyed and the British jailed his wife, who died soon thereafter.
After he inked the Declaration of Independence, New Jersey’s John Hart had to flee from his wife’s deathbed and their 13 children were driven away. Hart lived in caves and woods for more than a year, returning to find his fields and gristmill in ruin and his family gone. Within weeks, he would be dead from exhaustion and grief.
Soldiers or looters also scavenged the homeplaces of three of the four Declaration signers from South Carolina — Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton and Thomas Heyward Jr. — and five others suffered a similar fate.
Wealthy Virginia planter and trader Carter Braxton had his ships devastated by the British Navy and died in rags after being forced to sell off his properties to pay his debts.
Thomas McKean of Delaware also was relegated to a life of poverty after his possessions were taken from him, and his family constantly was on the run from the enemy. So great was McKean’s conviction to independence that he served in Congress without pay.
Signers’ hardships lasted right until the end of the bloody conflict. After Cornwallis, the British general, occupied the home of Thomas Nelson Jr. as his headquarters during the Battle of Yorktown, Nelson urged Gen. George Washington to fire at the structure. It was destroyed, and though the Revolution had been won, Nelson would die broke.
These men were not just a bunch of hoodlums or rabble-rousers, but merchants, farmers, lawyers and other leaders in their respective communities. And a quick count of all those who suffered horrible tragedies show that a good percentage of the signers saw their once-comfortable lives ruined to some extent as a result of their desire for liberty.
So here we are 233 years later, waving the flags and enjoying the freedom that our Founding Fathers gave us through their blood and tears and sacrifices.
But how many of us today would be willing to take a stand against oppression or injustice to the point where we risked our existence by signing a document that could be considered our own death sentence?
I hate to admit it about our “evolved” society. But if this country had to depend on some of the attitudes and apathy prevalent among citizens today in order to gain its independence in 1776, there’s no doubt America would still be a British colony.
Mount Airy News
The Fourth of July is one of the holidays I value the most. For one thing, it is a uniquely American observance, since it honors the very foundation of our existence as a nation.
It is a time that stresses basic values such as freedom and patriotism, which thankfully the populace can still revel in without requiring a trip to the card store, flower shop or jewelers.
But when we use such frequently uttered phrases as “celebrating our liberty,” what exactly does that mean, and what should it mean?
While July 4 might signify Independence Day parades or communitywide gatherings, fireworks displays, stuffing one’s face with hot dogs and all-around flag-waving, modern joys surrounding Fourth activities are far removed from what many signers of the Declaration of Independence endured.
Of course, the sugar-coated history portrayed in textbooks conjures up images of a bunch of Colonial dudes with funny hair simply getting together in a big room in Philadelphia, and slapping their John Henrys (or John Hancocks) on a piece of paper.
But contrary to popular belief, they then didn’t all just go over to Samuel Adams’ place and drink beer to celebrate what they had done.
Though participants such as Thomas Jefferson would advance to greater glory, it generally was anything but fun and games for the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. After all, these colonists had just outwardly defied the greatest military power on Earth at the time, the British.
And the crown didn’t take this act of rebellion lightly, but considered it a blatant act of treason by the signers, who then were systematically dealt with accordingly in any way the enemy could, including the penalty of death if captured. Signers ended up sacrificing lives, families, fortunes and homes.
Various historical accounts show that five of those 56 brave souls were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died.
Another nine Declaration signers later would succumb to wounds, disease or other causes in the Revolutionary War. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned, while two lost sons in the war and another two had sons captured.
Francis Lewis, one of the signers from New York, had his home and properties destroyed and the British jailed his wife, who died soon thereafter.
After he inked the Declaration of Independence, New Jersey’s John Hart had to flee from his wife’s deathbed and their 13 children were driven away. Hart lived in caves and woods for more than a year, returning to find his fields and gristmill in ruin and his family gone. Within weeks, he would be dead from exhaustion and grief.
Soldiers or looters also scavenged the homeplaces of three of the four Declaration signers from South Carolina — Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton and Thomas Heyward Jr. — and five others suffered a similar fate.
Wealthy Virginia planter and trader Carter Braxton had his ships devastated by the British Navy and died in rags after being forced to sell off his properties to pay his debts.
Thomas McKean of Delaware also was relegated to a life of poverty after his possessions were taken from him, and his family constantly was on the run from the enemy. So great was McKean’s conviction to independence that he served in Congress without pay.
Signers’ hardships lasted right until the end of the bloody conflict. After Cornwallis, the British general, occupied the home of Thomas Nelson Jr. as his headquarters during the Battle of Yorktown, Nelson urged Gen. George Washington to fire at the structure. It was destroyed, and though the Revolution had been won, Nelson would die broke.
These men were not just a bunch of hoodlums or rabble-rousers, but merchants, farmers, lawyers and other leaders in their respective communities. And a quick count of all those who suffered horrible tragedies show that a good percentage of the signers saw their once-comfortable lives ruined to some extent as a result of their desire for liberty.
So here we are 233 years later, waving the flags and enjoying the freedom that our Founding Fathers gave us through their blood and tears and sacrifices.
But how many of us today would be willing to take a stand against oppression or injustice to the point where we risked our existence by signing a document that could be considered our own death sentence?
I hate to admit it about our “evolved” society. But if this country had to depend on some of the attitudes and apathy prevalent among citizens today in order to gain its independence in 1776, there’s no doubt America would still be a British colony.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Polar Bear Population Increasing!
NewScientist
Climate myths: Polar bear numbers are increasing
17:00 16 May 2007 by Phil McKenna
Polar bears have become the poster children of global warming. The bears spend most or all of the year living and hunting on sea ice, and the accelerating shrinking of this ice appears to pose a serious threat. The issue has even become politically sensitive.
Yet recently there have been claims that polar bear populations are increasing. So what's going on? There are thought to be between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears in 19 population groups around the Arctic. While polar bear numbers are increasing in two of these populations, two others are definitely in decline. We don't really know how the rest of the populations are faring, so the truth is that no one can say for sure how overall numbers are changing.
The two populations that are increasing, both in north-eastern Canada, were severely reduced by hunting in the past and are recovering thanks to the protection they and their prey now enjoy.
The best-studied population, in Canada's western Hudson Bay, fell by 22% from 1194 animals in 1987 to 935 in 2004, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. A second group in the Beaufort Sea, off Alaska's north coast, is now experiencing the same pattern of reduced adult weights and cub survival as the Hudson Bay group.
A comprehensive review (pdf) by the US Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that shrinking sea ice is the primary cause for the decline seen in these populations, and it recently proposed listing polar bears as threatened (pdf) under the Endangered Species Act. The World Conservation Union projects the bears' numbers will drop by 30% by 2050 (pdf) due to continued loss of Arctic sea ice.
Climate myths: Polar bear numbers are increasing
17:00 16 May 2007 by Phil McKenna
Polar bears have become the poster children of global warming. The bears spend most or all of the year living and hunting on sea ice, and the accelerating shrinking of this ice appears to pose a serious threat. The issue has even become politically sensitive.
Yet recently there have been claims that polar bear populations are increasing. So what's going on? There are thought to be between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears in 19 population groups around the Arctic. While polar bear numbers are increasing in two of these populations, two others are definitely in decline. We don't really know how the rest of the populations are faring, so the truth is that no one can say for sure how overall numbers are changing.
The two populations that are increasing, both in north-eastern Canada, were severely reduced by hunting in the past and are recovering thanks to the protection they and their prey now enjoy.
The best-studied population, in Canada's western Hudson Bay, fell by 22% from 1194 animals in 1987 to 935 in 2004, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. A second group in the Beaufort Sea, off Alaska's north coast, is now experiencing the same pattern of reduced adult weights and cub survival as the Hudson Bay group.
A comprehensive review (pdf) by the US Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that shrinking sea ice is the primary cause for the decline seen in these populations, and it recently proposed listing polar bears as threatened (pdf) under the Endangered Species Act. The World Conservation Union projects the bears' numbers will drop by 30% by 2050 (pdf) due to continued loss of Arctic sea ice.
What would Neda Soltani say?
It's a bit like watching a man rape a woman and saying, "I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out."
Daniel Inouye Linked to Questionable Bank Bailout
From CBS.com
A struggling Hawaii bank received a $135 million federal bailout last fall two weeks after staff from the office of Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, a big investor in the bank, called federal regulators about the aid application, according to a report in ProPublica Tuesday.
Bank regulators had designated Central Pacific Financial as a marginal candidate to receive federal assistance, according to documents cited in the report. But soon after the phone call from Inouye's office, the Treasury directed millions of dollars to bolster the bank's capital reserves.
Inouye, D-Hawaii, owns shares in the bank that totaled between $350,000 and $700,000 at the end of 2007, according to the report. That amounts to roughly two-thirds of the senator's personal wealth.
Since 2007, the bank's stock has lost 79 percent of its value.
While it's not unique for a senator to have a stake in a local bank, it was unusual for Inouye's office to contact regulators about the bank's application, the report states.
Inouye acknowledged in a statement that an aide did contact the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation about Central Pacific's application, but denied trying to influence any decision. He didn't mention whether the aide contacted regulators at his request.
Such involvement wouldn't violate Senate rules, the report cites experts as saying.
The FDIC and Treasury said the decision to bail out the bank was not related to the communication with Inouye's office, according to the report.
A struggling Hawaii bank received a $135 million federal bailout last fall two weeks after staff from the office of Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, a big investor in the bank, called federal regulators about the aid application, according to a report in ProPublica Tuesday.
Bank regulators had designated Central Pacific Financial as a marginal candidate to receive federal assistance, according to documents cited in the report. But soon after the phone call from Inouye's office, the Treasury directed millions of dollars to bolster the bank's capital reserves.
Inouye, D-Hawaii, owns shares in the bank that totaled between $350,000 and $700,000 at the end of 2007, according to the report. That amounts to roughly two-thirds of the senator's personal wealth.
Since 2007, the bank's stock has lost 79 percent of its value.
While it's not unique for a senator to have a stake in a local bank, it was unusual for Inouye's office to contact regulators about the bank's application, the report states.
Inouye acknowledged in a statement that an aide did contact the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation about Central Pacific's application, but denied trying to influence any decision. He didn't mention whether the aide contacted regulators at his request.
Such involvement wouldn't violate Senate rules, the report cites experts as saying.
The FDIC and Treasury said the decision to bail out the bank was not related to the communication with Inouye's office, according to the report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)