Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!
Current mood: angsty
Category: News and Politics
"Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!"
Portrait of Patrick Henry, painted by Thomas Sully in 1815, (signed "T.S. 1815"), oil on canvas, CWF acc. no. 1958-3.To avoid interference from Lieutenant-Governor Dunmore and his Royal Marines, the Second Virginia Convention met March 20, 1775 inland at Richmond--in what is now called St. John's Church--instead of the Capitol in Williamsburg. Delegate Patrick Henry presented resolutions to raise a militia, and to put Virginia in a posture of defense. Henry's opponents urged caution and patience until the crown replied to Congress' latest petition for reconciliation.
On the 23rd, Henry presented a proposal to organize a volunteer company of cavalry or infantry in every Virginia county. By custom, Henry addressed himself to the Convention's president, Peyton Randolph of Williamsburg. Henry's words were not transcribed, but no one who heard them forgot their eloquence, or Henry's closing words: "Give me liberty, or give me death!"
Henry's first biographer, William Wirt of Maryland, was three-years-old in 1775. An assistant federal prosecutor in Aaron Burr's trial for treason at Richmond in 1807, and later attorney general of the United States, Wirt began to collect materials for the biography in 1808, nine years after Henry's death. From the recollections of men like Thomas Jefferson, Wirt reconstructed an account of Henry's life, including the remarks presented below.
St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia March 23, 1775.
MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Source: Wirt, William. Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry . (Philadelphia) 1836, as reproduced in The World's Great Speeches, Lewis Copeland and Lawrence W. Lamm, eds., (New York) 1973.
Although at http://ronpaulgraphs.com/index.html there was a showing of just over 6 million, I couldn't get the screen grab in time after it updated it was showing $0 as I went into the 17th of December! DAMN! -Lars-
Ron Paul Monroe County supporters unite!
Current mood: Inspired
Yes, we have been hitting the streets! If you support Ron's message and would like to give him a better chance of getting elected, change affiliation to 'Republican' so that you can vote in the primaries!
Each state is different, so click on the link to the website for your home state to check the deadline for switching parties before your states primary!
After the primaries, you could always switch back before the general election to the party of your choice. BUT, Ron also needs delegates for the RNC in 2008! If you can try to get elected as a delegate it would help the cause even more! Doing so is easier than you might think! I'm going to try for my area!
A Smoking Gun: Taxation is NOT for 'services'!
Category: News and Politics
Ahem... Just in case you were wondering why those 'silly tax protesters' are so active in trying to prove to the rest of the people in this country that our entire tax system is perverted and outright un-Constitutional! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A smoking gun: taxation is NOT for "services"! July 25th, 2007
It is commonly said by statists that taxation is a payment for "services." The natural reply, of course, is to point out that "services" do not need to be provided at the point of a gun, and that if these "services" are so great, then we should be left free to decide whether we want them or not.
But here is a smoking gun that makes all of this irrelevant. "US law" itself gives itself the right to levy taxation EVEN WHEN a person is residing in another "country" and has abandoned his citizenship:
P.L. 104-191 contains changes in the taxation of U.S. citizens who renounce or otherwise lose U.S. citizenship. In general, any person who lost U.S. citizenship within 10 years immediately preceding the close of the taxable year, whose principle purpose in losing citizenship was to avoid taxation, will be subject to continued taxation. For the purposes of this statute, persons are presumed to have a principle purpose of avoiding taxation if 1) their average annual net income tax for a five year period before the date of loss of citizenship is greater than $100,000, or 2) their net worth on the date of the loss of U.S. nationality is $500,000 or more (subject to cost of living adjustments).
What this piece of law tells us is that the purpose of taxation is NOT payment for "services." It is an assertion of ownership of your labour by the State. It's as simple as that! If you are rich and leave the "country," you are depriving the State of its property (your labour), and thus must pay a punishment (taxes for 10 years to a State that provides you no "services") because you "stole" their property by leaving.
The ruling class asserts property over the land, over your body and over your labour. It asserts control over all of your freedoms in the name of enforcing this property. Your right of free speech is dependent on your support of the State's policies, your right of movement and your right of self-ownership are dependent on the State's desire to accept or relinquish your labour, and your right of property is entirely conditional on the State's own claims of property over the land you live on.
What the Hell is Going On?!?
Current mood: awake
Category: News and Politics
This blogger is asking all the right questions. -Lars- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What the Hell is Going On?!?
Something is puzzling me. When this happens my mind doesn't rest. Whatever I may be doing, my mind keeps churning in the background and occasionally throws up a piece of the puzzle which I will look at and then set down; back the mind goes to its churning with this new piece added. Eventually I come up with a hypothesis which satisfies my understanding. Until this happens though, the mind churns and churns.
I imagine other people have this feature. We worry at a problem or a mystery until whatever surface information we have matches up with information from the sub-conscious. Now and then we get "Eureka!"
Something has been on my mind for several weeks now. It's connected to Ron Paul's saying something to the effect that the country is in "great danger" of the U.S. government staging a terrorist attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation, as the war in Iraq continues to deteriorate.
Then there was the article by Paul Craig Roberts http://counterpunch.org/roberts07162007.html in which he gets very direct about the possibility that the administration might be planning a false flag operation.
These people are both Republicans.
On the other hand there are commentaries from bloggers and other writers from all over the world about this possibility based on Chertoff's visceral antenna; recent Al Qaeda announcements, the usual fake Bin Laden video, all sorts of fuzzy news from Pakistan, the efforts to justify attacking Iran, Israel's intention to go to war with Syria and the buildup in readiness that is taking place at this moment.
Okay, let's pause a moment and think about something. Sure, opinion writers analyze events in the news and come up with a perspective on it and most of them also have some sort of political POV or affiliation that will color how they present it and determine what information they want to highlight along the way to making their case.
Less obvious are the reasons why members of the president's own party would make such a comment. Furthermore, these are not the only people connected to the Republican party that have indicated a willingness to believe that the government fabricates information and stages events to advance their agenda.
Here is the thing that is puzzling me. For people to say what they are saying they must have some information that the administration has been up to this before. They must have some intel that the administration has been involved in false flag operations in the past. I'm not talking about the common fact that the administration routinely lies. I'm not talking about things like Niger yellowcake. I'm not talking about manipulating terror alerts. There are many, many efforts such as this of which we are aware and any government will engage in acts like this to a greater or lesser degree. "Every ship of state sails on a river of darkness."
I'm hoping I can convey to you just what it is that is puzzling me. It is a difficult thing to do. I'm having trouble with it. What information do these people have that has convinced them to the degree that they would announce it? We don't have any sure and certain information that this administration has actually committed a staged terror attack, regardless of how certain many of us are that it has happened. We don't have the smoking gun.
Why do so many people of good reputation believe that the administration would do such a thing when there's no hard evidence that they have before? It seems to me that they in fact do know. Nowhere in mass media is there any honest dialogue allowed about 9/11. That door is sealed shut. Nowhere in mass media is there any revelation concerning the plethora of false information about Iran (except for Keith Olbermann). The news is rigidly controlled and manipulated to the advantage of corporations and criminal interests in the government.
It doesn't matter how much we suspect Bushco of involvement in 9/11. It doesn't matter what we think the government may have been up to and it doesn't matter that they have a history of saying and doing anything they want to achieve their ends. When it comes to staged terror attacks our information is circumstantial. So, on what information are Roberts and Paul and others of their affiliation basing their beliefs?
One could say that all over America there are a large number of people who are convinced that the administration is going to stage a false terror attack. At the same time there's no concrete evidence that they have done this. It creates a real puzzle in my mind. It seems like I am seeing a ubiquitous conviction, a collective certainty that this administration can and will commit treason against their own country. Does this strike anyone else as being outrageous?
We know they've been up to bad things but surely, if there was the hard evidence, impeachment and worse would be an absolute certainty. But yet, we are certain. Do you see my problem? It is so difficult to present the picture I want to convey, that we are in a situation where we know something we don't know and for some reason everything continues on toward what awaits.
Here we sit, lacking the one vital thing we need to change everything while at the same time so many people know. And it can get mentioned in the paper and on TV. It can be discussed as if it were really happening, had happened and yet… it isn't being treated as if it were real. Major efforts are not underway to handcuff the administration and speed toward impeachment. Meanwhile the administration makes one step after another toward limiting individual rights, declaring martial law, seizing the possessions of anyone who opposes policy, attacking Iran and so on and so on. Step by step it proceeds. Everyone can see it but no one is doing anything but making a little noise here and there. It just moves forward. Do you not find this as strange as I do?
We know something. We know it the way a jury knows it when they find a defendant guilty due to a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. What is this curious thing that I can't describe that gives the sensation of moving through Jello? It feels like sleepwalking, like swimming through liquid tar. People are actually talking about an act of treason by their own government and… nothing. Most of the country wants impeachment and there is just more aqua ballet through fluid Vaseline. It feels like science fiction to me. It feels like some kind of Stepford Wives meets the pod people.
There's some kind of metaphysical conundrum at work and I am moving through Jello myself as I try to present this elusive concept that just won't form for me. I'm all around it and some of you may be getting enough to see what I'm getting at. It's like being in a dream where you are watching something you can't participate in. You can't move very well when you try. It's slow motion while something else is going at normal speed. The soundtrack is unintelligible due to excessive slurring.
In conclusion, why isn't impeachment the focus of the moment? Tell me why the entire country and the majority of the lawmakers aren't diligently engaged in this? There's not just one solid reason. There are dozens. We don't need no stinking, smoking gun. Is it mass hypnosis? Is it some kind of subliminal broadcast? Is it a gas or in the water supply? This might seem absurd to some but I can't seem to find any sane explanations for it.
July 18, 2007 05:17am Article from: Agence France-Presse
THE French and English branches of the fabled Rothschild banking family announced their unification overnight, ending a separation that dates from the 19th century.
Under an agreement announced overnight the two will unify their shareholdings under a single holding company, the French group Paris-Orleans.
Symbols of big money and finance, the Rothschild dynasty, which includes media personalities, amateurs of horse racing and owners of prestigious vineyards, is best known for its capital management activities.
The two branches were created at the beginning of the 19th century when the founder of the dynasty, Frankfurt-based Meyer Amschel, sent his sons on a mission throughout Europe to develop the bank he had created.
Mr Amschel was renamed Rothschild by his neighbours because of the red shield which adorned his house.
Of the four sons who left Germany, Nathan settled in London and founded NM Rothschild and Sons. Jacob Meyer, who was nicknamed James, settled for Paris.
Jacob Meyer's success was astounding. He in no time gained influence, largely thanks to his interest in high society life.
The success of the British branch was also spectacular. The son of Nathan, Lionel, in 1858 became the first Jewish member of the upper house of parliament, the House of Lords.
His descendant, Sir Evelyn, the former chief of the British branch who is now aged 75, had privileged relations with the former prime minister Margaret Thatcher.
A backer of the merger between the French and British branches, Sir Evelyn has passed responsibility over to his three children, Jessica, 33, Anthony, 30 and David 28, who all inherit a share in the new group.
Paris-Orleans is to buy the 50 per cent stake held by the English branch of the family in a holding company that controls the banking empire, Concordia BV.
The transaction will cost Paris-Orleans €446 million ($707.71 million), with payment made 50 per cent in shares and 50 per cent in cash.
Sir Evelyn will receive most of the cash, with the shares passed to his children.
The French cousins David and Eric de Rothschild are the two strongmen of the banking empire.
The former already oversees Rothschild's entire banking activities and he will be soon be at the head of the Paris Orleans holding company that groups the two branches.
Eric will remain president of the Paris Orleans supervisory board.
They will thus share the reins of an international group, active in mergers and acquisitions, as well as private asset management.
Bush Authorizes New Covert Action against Iran...
Current mood: awake
Category: News and Politics
Operation Ajax anyone?!? Why is it that there are so many Americans that refuse to believe that what's going on in the middle east right now has everything to do with imperialism?!? What's even more amazing is that there are still people out there that support this administration and still continue to believe that Bush is 'noble' and 'just' in the way we rape and pillage 3rd world countries. WAKE UP FUCKERS! You might want to read my previous blog about the National Security & Homeland Security Presidential Directive which was just recently signed and not a peep from the media toads! -Lars- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News, May 22, 2007. The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.
The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.
"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region.
A National Security Council spokesperson, Gordon Johndroe, said, "The White House does not comment on intelligence matters." A CIA spokesperson said, "As a matter of course, we do not comment on allegations of covert activity."
The sources say the CIA developed the covert plan over the last year and received approval from White House officials and other officials in the intelligence community.
Officials say the covert plan is designed to pressure Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment program and end aid to insurgents in Iraq.
"There are some channels where the United States government may want to do things without its hand showing, and legally, therefore, the administration would, if it's doing that, need an intelligence finding and would need to tell the Congress," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, a former White House counterterrorism official.
Current and former intelligence officials say the approval of the covert action means the Bush administration, for the time being, has decided not to pursue a military option against Iran.
"Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military strike," said former CIA official Riedel, "but I think they have come to the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than upsides."
The covert action plan comes as U.S. officials have confirmed Iran had dramatically increased its ability to produce nuclear weapons material, at a pace that experts said would give them the ability to build a nuclear bomb in two years.
Riedel says economic pressure on Iran may be the most effective tool available to the CIA, particularly in going after secret accounts used to fund the nuclear program.
"The kind of dealings that the Iranian Revolution Guards are going to do, in terms of purchasing nuclear and missile components, are likely to be extremely secret, and you're going to have to work very, very hard to find them, and that's exactly the kind of thing the CIA's nonproliferation center and others would be expert at trying to look into," Riedel said.
Under the law, the CIA needs an official presidential finding to carry out such covert actions. The CIA is permitted to mount covert "collection" operations without a presidential finding.
"Presidential findings" are kept secret but reported to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other key congressional leaders.
The "nonlethal" aspect of the presidential finding means CIA officers may not use deadly force in carrying out the secret operations against Iran.
Still, some fear that even a nonlethal covert CIA program carries great risks.
"I think everybody in the region knows that there is a proxy war already afoot with the United States supporting anti-Iranian elements in the region as well as opposition groups within Iran," said Vali Nasr, adjunct senior fellow for Mideast studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
"And this covert action is now being escalated by the new U.S. directive, and that can very quickly lead to Iranian retaliation and a cycle of escalation can follow," Nasr said.
Other "lethal" findings have authorized CIA covert actions against al Qaeda, terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
Also briefed on the CIA proposal, according to intelligence sources, were National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams.
"The entire plan has been blessed by Abrams, in particular," said one intelligence source familiar with the plan. "And Hadley had to put his chop on it."
Abrams' last involvement with attempting to destabilize a foreign government led to criminal charges.
He pleaded guilty in October 1991 to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress about the Reagan administration's ill-fated efforts to destabilize the Nicaraguan Sandinista government in Central America, known as the Iran-Contra affair. Abrams was later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush in December 1992.
In June 2001, Abrams was named by then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to head the National Security Council's office for democracy, human rights and international operations. On Feb. 2, 2005, National Security Advisor Hadley appointed Abrams deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor for global democracy strategy, one of the nation's most senior national security positions.
As earlier reported on the Blotter on ABCNews.com, the United States has supported and encouraged an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, that has conducted deadly raids inside Iran from bases on the rugged Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan "tri-border region."
U.S. officials deny any "direct funding" of Jundullah groups but say the leader of Jundullah was in regular contact with U.S. officials.
American intelligence sources say Jundullah has received money and weapons through the Afghanistan and Pakistan military and Pakistan's intelligence service. Pakistan has officially denied any connection.
A report broadcast on Iranian TV last Sunday said Iranian authorities had captured 10 men crossing the border with $500,000 in cash along with "maps of sensitive areas" and "modern spy equipment."
A senior Pakistani official told ABCNews.com the 10 men were members of Jundullah.
The leader of the Jundullah group, according to the Pakistani official, has been recruiting and training "hundreds of men" for "unspecified missions" across the border in Iran.
angsty
accomplished
awake
amused
