(below) this was sent to me a number of years ago and i just found it again on a site that claims this is an overstatment of what these men endured.
what are your thoughts –
as the november election approaches i find myself thinking of the sacrifice and hardship of those who signed and fought the revolutionary war – and i think to myself all we have to do is organize and encourage our family and friends to vote ‘right’.
also one other thing i have noticed many elderly that i know believe that medicare and social security has been some sort of deal for them while i try to explain to them that adjusted for inflation they are probably not getting more than they paid in to ss, and medicare is not a deal as their supplemental policy is likely subsidizing (redistributing their own wealth via a private insurance policy) their own medicare.
if i am right on this assertion then these same elderly who have been voting like pavlav dogs’ for dems because they believed they were receiving a (net positive) benefit from ss and medicare above and beyond either what they have paid in or not taking into account the supplmental policy need as medicare is a little step above canadian health care in what in covers.
i realize you are extremely busy with that idiot steven h – he is a fly on your windshield.
i enjoy your work
The Price They Paid
Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the revolutionary army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the revolutionary war. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners, men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.
Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.
Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Ellery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.
At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.
John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a broken heart. Morris and Livingston suffered similar fates.
Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: “For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”
They gave you and me a free and independent America. The history books never told you a lot of what happened in the revolutionary war. We didn’t just fight the British. We were British subjects at that time and we fought our own government! Perhaps you can now see why our founding fathers had a hatred for standing armies, and allowed through the second amendment for everyone to be armed.
Frankly, I can’t read this without crying. Some of us take these liberties so much for granted. We shouldn’t.
I edited your comment ONLY to add a link and highlight the title.
The Declaration of Independence ends with the words, “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.”
Another beautiful story of the truth in our founding history is this:
“NO KING BUT KING JESUS”
Either your God will be your King or your king will be your god.
On April 18, 1775 John Adams and John Hancock were at the home of Rev. Jonas Clarke, a Lexington pastor and militia leader. That same night Paul Revere arrived to warn them of the approaching Redcoats. The next morning British Major Pitcairn shouted to an assembled regiment of Minutemen; “Disperse, ye villains, lay down your arms in the name of George the Sovereign King of England.” The immediate response of Rev. Jonas Clarke or one of his company was:
“We recognize no Sovereign but God and no King but Jesus.”
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!” Patrick Henry
“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty…of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” John Jay, First Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court
Our founding fathers were incredible men. And they were men who would be appalled – not proud – of what has happened to the nation they founded.
Our founding fathers were men who threw off the shackles of tyranny when faced with just a tiny fraction of the tyranny that we are confronted with today. We have become victims to the “gradualism” of the Fabian socialism that Glenn Beck described the previous two days.
Thanks for your support, Robbie.
And thanks even more for supporting the right causes.
Levin has live streaming via his website and sometimes i use wabc ny 77 if i am on pc in afternoon hannity2-5pm leads into levin 5-8pm – both are rebroadcast in 4 hrs afters show in my area so i always try to catch him live rather than stay up until midnight.
i miss fox news but financially makes sense right now to not have premium channels.
and i think beck among others (back bencher radio hosts) cherry pick Levin for the next days material – i cant blame them the guys a genius.
I looked at the article that the blog-poster wants us to see.
He views the founding fathers’ intent as meaningless, given that said founding fathers gave us a means to change the Constitution via amendments.
The problem with his thesis is that the liberals have never bothered to use that approach; rather, they have simply chosen to change the clearly intended meaning of the Constitution by judicial fiat.
These same people who have no problem with liberal judicial tyranny would be howling like dogs as the firetruck goes by if hyper-conservatives invoked sharia (the way liberals have invoked socialist European) law to punish homosexuals, adulterers, secularists and those who undermined the conservative regime.
In other words, if conservatives were to ever use the exact same methodology to impose their will on the Constitution and simply say, “This is what we want the Constitution to mean; it’s a living breathing document subject to change; and therefore we’re going to change the hell out of it,” liberals would be screaming their opposition.
The way the liberals have perverted the Constitution and the courts, it is simply all about political power, rather than our founding principles.
Fine. One day, there will be five solid conservatives on the Supreme Court. Maybe they’ll decide to employ the “living breathing document” theory and decide that the Constitution says – via whatever penumbras and emanations they “discern” in the text – that every single Democrat should be identified by means of past voting record, and then hunted down with dogs and burned alive.
Justice Scalia pointed out the “clear and present danger” of the liberal judicial philosophy and issued a warning:
23:14 Scalia: Well, that’s fine. The question is whether that’s right. The question is whether, whether, you can live with an evolving constitution. Once you say it evolves, it doesn’t depend what the people thought they were doing when they adopted it — it evolves. Somebody is going to have to decide how it evolves. Why in the world would you want nine people from a very uncharacteristic class of society — to whit, nine lawyers — to decide how the constitution evolves? It means whatever they think it ought to mean!
26:05 Scalia: Nadine, language can be capacious without implying that its meaning changes in the future. When they said ‘due process of law’ they meant those rights of Englishmen in 1791. And the reason they didn’t set them forth in detail is because it would have taken a casebook this fat! Of course they couldn’t list them all. So they said ‘due process of law’ which meant something different in France in 1791, or in Hawaii in 1791, but they knew what it meant in America — it meant, that process which was the right of Englishmen. There’s no necessity to say, ‘oh, and they invited the Supreme Court to give this thing new meaning’ — whatever new meaning this Supreme Court thinks is a good idea in the future. Someday, Nadine, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court — And you’re going to regret what you’ve done.
How about this? Let’s read George Washington’s Farewell Address into the Constitution in the exact same manner that liberal justices read a private letter written by Thomas Jefferson into the record that created the “wall of separation of church and state.” Let’s strike that (because the Constitution “changed”, dontchaknow), and replace Jefferson’s letter with this:
“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington
And now we can rule with our five justices that any non-Bible-thumping Christian evangelical is in fact a traitor to this country and ought to be arrested and imprisoned as a traitor.
The only reason this country hasn’t already collapsed is because conservatives haven’t done to the law what liberals have.
But mark my words, conservatives are getting so pissed off at the constant hypocritical double-standards that day day is going to come when we say, “Fine. Let’s play ball by your rules.”
Double standards are always a problem in social construction of society for the same reason that it was never Hitler who committed the horrors of euthanasia and genocide during the Holicaust; it was the torture and murder attitudes of thousands who crossed the boundaries of human decency to use WWII and Hitler’s power as the opportunity to destroy. Humans should not underestimate the psychological capacity of humans to destroy just as easily as, and perhaps easier than they construct. The brain has no conscience except one provided by the training and heart; it will perform as finitely as the spirit determines depending upon the morality brought to the task. Rationalizing immorality is one of mankind’s favorite undertakings throughout history, and just as it operated during the Holicaust, it can operate at any time in history. The Holicaust was not unique to humans, but it was unique to the times – at that time. Repetition is virtually assured if humans do not check their brutality at the door, and that means a constant check upon virtue and self indulgence that is apt to drift into the realm of brutality. That is the function of democracy, and why it is valuable to the worl, its hidden value that is the primary reason it works – to prevent brutality from becoming the norm in society. Whose rules society plays by is supremely important in creating conflict free societies, and the alternative is always death and destruction.
What you write is interesting. I could easily interpret it as either entirely agreeing with or radically contradicting what I believe as a Christian.
So I shall simply state my own views.
We are not merely animals because we have something that no other animal has; the image of God. It was warped and perverted in the Fall, but it was not completely eradicated is us. We still have moral capacities that no other animal has or could have. And particularly when we see the world rightly through God’s Word and through His Holy Spirit, we can truly rise above the corruption of human nature. We can also see the world and ourselves as God sees it.
The more you turn away from God, the more you embrace the animal.
One of the leading experts on fascism, Ernst Nolte, defined fascism as “the practical and violent resistance to transcendence” [Nolte, Three Faces of Fascism: Action Francaise, Italian Fascism, Nazi Fascism, 1965, p. 429]. Fascism was anti-God, anti-supernatural and anti-transcendence.
Gene Edward Veith pointed out that:
“It is particularly important to know, precisely, why the Nazis hated the Jews. Racism alone cannot explain the virulence of Nazi anti-Semitism. What did they see in the Jews that they thought was so inferior? What was the Jewish legacy that, in their mind, so poisoned Western culture? What were the Aryan ideals that the Nazis sought to restore, once the Jews and their influence were purged from Western culture?
The fascists aligned themselves not only against the Jews but against what the Jews contributed to Western civilization. A transcendent God, who reveals a transcendent moral law, was anathema to the fascists” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 13].
By killing the Jews, Hitler intended to kill the God of the Bible.
And with such a worldview and with such a project, the most educated, the most scientific, the most advanced nation of its day became monsters.