Social Security - History  Lesson 
Your Social Security: 

Just  in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't  
know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and  
show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what  and it 
doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!  

Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly  stated the number and 
card were not to be used for identification  purposes. Since nearly everyone 
in the United States now has a number,  it became convenient to use it 
anyway and the message was  removed.
_[9]_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_number#cite_note-8)  An 
old Social Security card with the "NOT FOR  IDENTIFICATION" message. 

Our Social  Security:

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social  
Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 

1.) That participation  in the Program would be completely  voluntary, 
No longer Voluntary 

2.) That the participants would only have to  pay 
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual 
Incomes into the  Program, 

Now  7.65% 
on the first $90,000  


3.) That the money the participants elected to put  
into the Program would be deductible from 
their income for tax  purposes each year, 

No longer tax deductible 


4.)  That the money the participants put into the 
independent 'Trust  Fund' rather than into the 
general operating fund, and therefore,  would 
only be used to fund the Social Security 
Retirement  Program, and no other 
Government program, and, 

Under Johnson the money was moved  to 
The General Fund and Spent 


5) That the annuity payments to the retirees  would never be taxed as 
income 

Under Clinton & Gore 
Up to  85% of your Social Security can be Taxed 

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years  and are 
now receiving a Social Security check every month -- 
and  then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of 
the money we paid  to the Federal government to 'put 
away' -- you may be interested in  the following: 


Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from  the 
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the 
general fund so  that Congress could spend it? 

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the  democrat 
controlled House and Senate. 


Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax  
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? 

A: The  Democrat Party. 


Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social  
Security annuities? 

A: The Democrat Party, with Al  Gore casting the 
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of  the 
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US 


Q: Which Political Party decided to  start
giving annuity payments to immigrants? 

AND MY FAVORITE:  

A: That's right!  

Jimmy Carter and the Democrat  Party.  
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, 
began to  receive Social Security payments! The 
Democrat Party gave these  payments to them, 
even though they never paid a dime into it!  


Then, after  violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn 
around and  tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security 
away!  
The worst part  about it is uninformed citizens believe it and believe that 
the  Democrats are "for the people." 
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of  awareness will be planted 
and maybe changes will 
evolve. Maybe not,  some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. 

But it's worth  a try. How many people can YOU send this to? 

Actions speak  louder than bumper stickers. 

AND CONGRESS GIVES  THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE  TERM

Editor's note: The Republican Party is no better, time to vote OUT of the box.

Thank you omniciye

Neal Boortz, attorney and talk show host, addresses the issue of the failures of banks, lenders and brokerage firms. He hits the nail on the head and gives us something to think about. He writes:

What in the world is going on here?

You've seen the headlines, and you heard of the failures and buyouts. Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, AIG; all big names and all in big trouble. Then those mysterious quasi-government agencies with names like Freddie and Fannie become wards of the state and you learn that you and your fellow taxpayers are potentially on the hook for tens of billions of dollars. At the end of the week Washington Mutual is looking for a buyer, and you start to wonder about the security of your own bank and your own savings account. Let's change that ad copy to WaMu -- boo hoo.
Somewhere in the back of your mind you understand that this is all tied somehow to bad mortgages. If you start reading a bit further to enhance your understanding you run into terms like Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) and credit-default swaps, whatever in the world those are. Read further and you find out that a combination of falling home prices and mortgage defaults have put many investment banks and other financial institutions in deep puddin'. All this reading, all this watching the talking heads on TV, and you still don't really know what in the world is going on here.

Fear not. I'm here to help. I know . I'm just another talk show host; but the fact is that when the stage was being set for the problems we're seeing today I was making most of my money as a real estate lawyer .. closing loans for some of the very institutions that are the tank today. This rather unique combination - closing lawyer and radio talk show host - gave me a front row seat to the politicization of mortgage loans that led us to today's headlines.
OK .. so we all know that a lot of really bad real estate loans were made. The political class would sure love for us to believe that the blame here rests squarely on 'greedy' (try to define that word) mortgage brokers and lenders. The truth is that most of the blame rests on political meddling in the credit decisions of these mortgage lenders.
Twenty years ago the buzz-word in the media was 'redlining.' Newspapers across the country were filled with hard-hitting investigative reports about evil and racist mortgage lenders refusing to make real estate loans to various minorities and to applicants who lived in lower-income neighborhoods. There I was closing these loans in the afternoons, and in the mornings offering a counter-argument on the radio to these absurd 'redlining' claims. Frankly, the claims that evil mortgage lenders were systematically denying loans to blacks and other minorities were a lot sexier on the radio than my claims that when credit histories, job stability, loan-to-value ratios and income levels were considered there was no evident racial discrimination.

Political correctness won the day. Washington made it clear to banks and other lending institutions that if they did not do something .. and fast .. to bring more minorities and low-income Americans into the world of home ownership there would be a heavy price to pay. Congress set up processes (Research the Community Redevelopment Act) whereby community activist groups and organizers could effectively stop a bank's efforts to grow if that bank didn't make loans to unqualified borrowers. Enter, stage left, the 'subprime' mortgage. These lenders knew that a very high percentage of these loans would turn to garbage - but it was a price that had to be paid if the bank was to expand and grow. We should note that among the community groups browbeating banks into making these bad loans was an outfit called ACORN. There is one certain presidential candidate that did a lot of community organizing for ACORN. I won't mention his name so as to avoid politicizing this column.
These garbage loans to unqualified borrowers were then bundled up and sold. The expectation was that the loans would be eventually paid off when rising home values led some borrowers to access their equity through re-financing and others to sell and move on up the ladder. Oops.
Right now this crisis is being sold to the American public by the left as evidence the failure of the free market and capitalism. Not so. What we're seeing is the inevitable result of political interference in free market economics. Acme bank didn't want to loan money to Joe Homebuyer because Joe had a spotty job history, owed too much money on his credit cards, and wasn't all that good at making payments on time. The politicians told Acme Bank to figure out a way to make that loan, because, after all, Joe is a bona-fide minority-American, or forget about opening that new branch office on the Southside. The loan was made under politicial pressure; the loan, with millions like it, failed - and now we are left to enjoy today's headlines.

So . why aren't you reading the whole story in the mainstream media? Come on, are you kidding me? Do you really expect the media to blame this mess on deadbeat borrowers and political interference in the free market when it is so easy to put the blame on greedy lenders and evil capitalists? Remember, there's an election going on. One candidate is decidedly anti-capitalist. Do the math.

....thanks omniciye

A little history lesson ...

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."  -- The Constitution for the United States of America

The above Presidential qualification was written nearly a century BEFORE the Civil War, and thus BEFORE the adoption of the so-called 14th Amendment, which defines U.S. [federal] citizenship ...

"The Constitution, although repeatedly using the term 'citizen', did not define United States citizenship prior to the Civil War.  This absence of definition may have reflected a desire on the part of the Framers to avoid fixing the status of slaves."  -- Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 2d Ed., p. 355

"The object of the 14th Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship." -- United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 692

"Citizenship of the United States is defined by the Fourteenth Amendment and federal statutes, ..." --  Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, 221 A2d 431, 434, citing 19 Md 82, 93

"... there is a citizenship of the United States [federal citizenship] and a citizenship of a state [State citizenship], which are distinct [foreign] from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances of the individual." -- Slaughter House Cases, 83 US 36 (1872)

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."  -- Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383  <<<GOTCHA!!>>>

"The government of the United States is a foreign corporation with respect to a [union] state." -- In re Merriam, 36 NE 505, 141 NY 479, affirmed 16 SCt 1073, 163 US 625  [see also 20 CJS § 1785] <<<ANOTHER GOTCHA!!>>>

Did you follow all that?  Read it again, if necessary.

Foundational Citizens = primary State Citizens = a Citizen in the context at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution

Whereas 14th Amendment, U.S. [federal] citizens (terms "persons", "residents", "individuals", "corporations", and "taxpayers") are NOT!!!!

Check out this Wikepedia page on State Citizenship (don't miss the all-important footnotes, i.e., fine-print!);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_citizenship

The legal meaning of these words: 'citizen', 'person', 'resident' and 'United States' ... have all radically changed since the Civil War ... but notice the intelligent, wise, crafty, careful language of Our Founding Fathers' Constitution ... which reads "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" ... that says it all, folks!  It means a 'Citizen' in the FOUNDATIONAL CONTEXT, not the corporate, emancipated slave, post-Civil War language of the 14th Amendment.

"The purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional for the following reasons: The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress (violative of Article I, § 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution).  The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval (violative of Article I, § 7).  The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the States then in the Union, and it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union (violative of Article V)." -- House Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, page 15641 [see also Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266 (1968), and State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936 (1975) wherein the 14th Amendment was considered ineffective]

Thank You, LRSANI

a summary of what's happening in the world (with some humon the intro) ... and how to share in the solution, not the problem ...

New World Order - The Final Solution 1/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s867QzPCmnI

New World Order - The Final Solution 2/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD--x4EOQzQ

New World Order - The Final Solution 3/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rsGgLAkd-Y

p.s. note beneath each video frame an option to 'watch in high quality' for broadband users

p.s.s. content produced by The Crow House ... at http://thecrowhouse.com/

Thank You, LRSANI

Sarah Palin's Record on Alaska Native and Tribal Issues

Sent:  Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:33:15 -0700
Subject: DAMAGE CONTROL: Obama, globalist C.F.R member?

Obama Town Hall Event (broadcast via WGAL,CNN), Lancaster, Penn. (MP3 audio file 
attached) ...
enjoy!

Audience member: "It's been reported that youand your wife are in theglobalist 
C.F.R., which is the
Council On Foreign Relations, and I'dlike to know if that is true ...."

Barack Obama: "Well, first of all ... uh ... I ... I'm ... I'm not ...uh ... the 
... the Council On
Foreign Relations ... uh ... I don't knowif I'm a official member ... I've ... 
I've spoken there
before ... uh... it basically is just a forum where a bunch of people talk 
aboutforeign policy ...
uh, and ... so there's nothing ... uh ... there ...there's no official 
membership, I don't have a
card ... er ... ya know... a special handshake or anything like that ... umm 
..."

VOICE STRESS MEASUREMENT TEST: 4.9/5.0 (FAIL)
POLITICAL DOUBLESPEAK RATING: 10.0/10.0 (PASS)
OVERALL EUPHORIC-HYPNOTIC-ANESTHETIC EFFECT: 0.8/5.0 (FAIL)
DAMAGE CONTROL EFFICIENCY: 0.2/5.0 (FAIL)

also from LRSANI

The CFR is the American Branch of a society which originated in England, 
and which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule 
established. CarrollQuigley, member of the CFR, from his book, Tragedy & Hope

"The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common they want to
bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States. 

A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and
their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the
control of global government." -- Admiral Chester Ward, member of the CFR for16 years, former judge
advocate general of U.S. Navy

"Practically every lawyer, banker, professor, general, journalist and bureaucrat who has had any
influence on the foreign policy of the last six Presidents -- From Franklin Roosevelt to Richard
Nixon -- has spent some time in the Council on Foreign Relations, Inc. .... it usually means that you
are a partner in an investment bank or law firm-- with occasional trouble-shooting assignments in government.

 You believe in foreign aid,  NATO, and a bipartisan foreign policy.
You've been pretty much running things in this country for the last 25 years, and you know it." --John Franklin Campbell, NY Times, 9/20/71

"For the last three decades, American foreign policy has remained largely in the hands of men -- the
overwhelming majority of them Council members -- whose world perspective was formed in World War II
 and in the economic reconstructions and military security programs that followed. . . " -- AnthonyLukas, NY Times, 11/21/71

"The CFR, as such, does not write the platforms of both political parties or select their respective
presidential candidates, or control U.S. defense and foreign policies. But CFR members, as
individuals, acting in concert with other individual CFR members, do." --Admiral Chester Ward,
former judge advocate general of U.S. Navy, CFR member

"The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its
slimy legs over our cities, states and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses...This
little coterie...run our government for their own selfish ends. It operates under cover of a
self-created screen...seizes...our executive officers...legislative 
bodies...schools...courts...newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.
former N.Y. Mayor,John Hylan

BarackObama/CFR/Bush bloodline Connection
http://youtube.com/watch?v=E0DoxrNCImI

"What Is The Lesson To Be Learned From The Holocaust?"

By Silvia Cattori

Read about the CIA and the Media at...

Dialog with Iranian President

Who are the 13 Most Corrupt Members of Congress?

Here’s another good history lesson I wasn’t taught!
from Patcricia

The Founding Immigrants

By KENNETH C. DAVIS

Published: July 3, 2007

Dorset, Vt.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/opinion/03davis.html?em&ex=1183608000&en=44534d879e660d98&ei=5087%0A

A PROMINENT American once said, about immigrants, “Few of their children in the country learn English... The signs in our streets have inscriptions in both languages ... Unless the stream of their importation could be turned they will soon so outnumber us that all the advantages we have will not be able to preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious.”

This sentiment did not emerge from the rancorous debate over the immigration bill defeated last week in the Senate. It was not the lament of some guest of Lou Dobbs or a Republican candidate intent on wooing bedrock conservative votes. Guess again.

Voicing this grievance was Benjamin Franklin. And the language so vexing to him was the German spoken by new arrivals to Pennsylvania in the 1750s, a wave of immigrants whom Franklin viewed as the “most stupid of their nation.”

About the same time, a Lutheran minister named Henry Muhlenberg, himself a recent arrival from Germany, worried that “the whole country is being flooded with ordinary, extraordinary and unprecedented wickedness and crimes. ... Oh, what a fearful thing it is to have so many thousands of unruly and brazen sinners come into this free air and unfenced country.”

These German masses yearning to breathe free were not the only targets of colonial fear and loathing. Echoing the opinions of colonial editors and legislators, Ben Franklin was also troubled by the British practice of dumping its felons on America. With typical Franklin wit, he proposed sending rattlesnakes to Britain in return. (This did not, however, preclude numerous colonists from purchasing these convicts as indentured servants.)

And still earlier in Pennsylvania, the Scotch-Irish had bred discontent, as their penchant for squatting on choice real estate ran headlong against the colony’s founders, the Penn family, and their genteel notions about who should own what.

Often, the disdain for the foreign was inflamed by religion. Boston’s Puritans hanged several Friends after a Bay Colony ban on Quakerism. In Virginia, the Anglicans arrested Baptists. But the greatest scorn was generally reserved for Catholics — usually meaning Irish, French, Spanish and Italians. Generations of white American Protestants resented newly arriving “Papists,” and even in colonial Maryland, a supposed haven for them, Roman Catholics were nonetheless forbidden to vote and hold public office.

Once independent, the new nation began to carve its views on immigrants into law. In considering New York’s Constitution, for instance, John Jay — later to become the first chief justice of the Supreme Court — suggested erecting “a wall of brass around the country for the exclusion of Catholics.”

By 1790, with the United States Constitution firmly in place, the first federal citizenship law restricted naturalization to “free white persons” who had been in the country for two years. That requirement was later pushed back to five years and, in 1798, to 14 years.

Then, as now, politics was key. Federalists feared that too many immigrants were joining the opposition. Under the 1798 Alien Act — with the threat of war in the air over French attacks on American shipping — President John Adams had license to deport anyone he considered “dangerous.” Although his secretary of state favored mass deportations, Adams never actually put anybody on a boat.

Back then, the French warranted the most suspicion, but there were other worrisome “aliens.” A wave of “wild Irish” refugees was thought to harbor dangerous radicals. Harsh “anti-coolie” laws later singled out the Chinese. And, of course, the millions of “involuntary” immigrants from Africa and their offspring were regarded merely as persons “held to service.”

Scratch the surface of the current immigration debate and beneath the posturing lies a dirty secret. Anti-immigrant sentiment is older than America itself. Born before the nation, this abiding fear of the “huddled masses” emerged in the early republic and gathered steam into the 19th and 20th centuries, when nativist political parties, exclusionary laws and the Ku Klux Klan swept the land.

As we celebrate another Fourth of July, this picture of American intolerance clashes sharply with tidy schoolbook images of the great melting pot. Why has the land of “all men are created equal” forged countless ghettoes and intricate networks of social exclusion? Why the signs reading “No Irish Need Apply”? And why has each new generation of immigrants had to face down a rich glossary of now unmentionable epithets? Disdain for what is foreign is, sad to say, as American as apple pie, slavery and lynching.

That fence along the Mexican border now being contemplated by Congress is just the latest vestige of a venerable tradition, at least as old as John Jay’s “wall of brass.” “Don’t fence me in” might be America’s unofficial anthem of unfettered freedom, but too often the subtext is, “Fence everyone else out.”
Kenneth C. Davis is the author of

“Don’t Know Much About History: Everything You Need to Know About American History but Never Learned.”
 

Quote:
"Impartiality [is] a principle .... to be suspended whenever the establishment [is] under threat."

"A group of Russian journalists .... were touring the United States. On the final day of their
visit, they were asked ... for their impressions. 'I have to tell you,' said the spokesman, 'that
we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV day after day that all
the opinions on all the vital issues are the same. To get that result in our country we send
journalists to the gulag. We even tear out their fingernails. Here you don't have to do any of
that. What is the secret?'"

".... members of the dissident group Charter 77 .... told me, 'In dictatorships we are more
fortunate that you in the West in one respect. We believe nothing of what we read in the newspapers
and nothing of what we watch on television, because we know its propaganda and lies. Unlike you in
the West. We've learned to look behind the propaganda and to read between the lines, and unlike
you, we know that the real truth is always subversive.'"

"... 'Never believe anything until it's officially denied.'"

Comments:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2006/06/comments-on-john-pilgers-n_115038012101904153.html

Quote:
"Those who see the seeds of fascism and disturbing similarities in the US (and UK) today to Nazi
Germany .... and Hitler's demonic appeal to his divine mission as that country's savior .... that
he sold to his people in Christian religious terms. He did it in a country that was the pride of
Western civilization and a very model of democracy. If it can happen there, it can anywhere and
will unless enough committed people work to prevent it."





The Bottled Water Lie: As Soft Drink Giant Admits Product is Tap Water, New Scrutiny Falls on the
Economic and Environmental Costs of a Billion Dollar Industry
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/01/1435240&mode=thread&tid=25

Read Transcript:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/01/1435240&mode=thread&tid=25#transcript

Download MP3 Audio:
http://www.archive.org/download/dn2007-0801/dn2007-0801-1_64kb.mp3

Quote:
"The soft drink giant Pepsi has been forced to make an embarrassing admission – its
best-selling Aquafina bottled water is nothing more than tap water.  A half-liter of Pepsi's
Aquafina .... costs $1.39. The bottle contains purified [tap] water from the [local] water supply.
From the tap, you can pour over 6.4 gallons for a penny. That makes the bottled stuff about 7,000
times more expensive, even though Aquafina is using the same source of water."

"The environmental impact of the country’s obsession with bottled water has been staggering.
Each day an estimated 60 million plastic water bottles are thrown away. Most are not recycled. The
Pacific Institute has estimated 20 million barrels of oil are used each year to make the plastic for water bottles"

Thank you LRSANI

How did Republicans pick the elephant, and Democrats the donkey, to represent their parties? c-span

$$$$ZZZZ.....

 'Security and Liberty'

 by Congressman Ron Paul

How politicians ought to think and speak!!

... complete article is HERE;

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst042307.htm

excerpt below;

"The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism."

Ron Paul's home page is HERE;

http://www.house.gov/paul/

Thank you: LRSANI

DEMOCRACY NOW! downloadable content

"They are laying the bricks one at a time for a police state."

Domestic Use of Spy Satellites To Widen
Law Enforcement Getting New Access To Secret Imagery; From the Washington Post

Iraq Veterans Against the War

Are we being brainwashed? A classic article by author Norman D. Livergood

From Alternet.org...10 Appalling lies WeWere Told About Iraq....

www.notinourname.net

American Friends Service Committee

International Answer-LA

Read up on the global peace efforts going on right now...at the

"The New Inquisition" Walter Cronkite from the Denver Post  

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 serving 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 Dillery, 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. Norris 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 about what happened in the Revolutionary War.

We didn't fight just the British. We were British subjects at that time and
we fought our own government! Some of us take these liberties so much for
granted, but we shouldn't. So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of
July holiday, or any day, and silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for
the price they paid.

Who are the 13 Most Corrupt Members of Congress?

Home  Native-American  Health  Science  Fine Arts   Articles