In Praise of Old Books - Daniel James Sanchez - Mises Daily
You see, the modern mind has been desiccated and atrophied by the state. State-dominated schooling is so inept that most boys and girls acquire a lifelong outright aversion to reading, such that they don't read any books outside of school. And nearly all who do read, don't read books of substance.
Not only reading enthusiasm, but reading comprehension has plummeted as well. Herodotus and Livy used to be schoolboy reading. Yet now even many university students would have trouble parsing the language of those clear, direct writers, much less more challenging fare like Thucydides and Polybius.
We are now living in something of an artificial dark age. The "barbarians" responsible for this dark age did not torch our libraries. Instead, they torched our minds and our curiosity, starting with the progressive educational revolution, which began in the 19th century and culminated in the early 20th century.
For the vanishingly few who do read books that treat of important ideas, the situation is not much better (perhaps worse), because most of these books are trash, both in terms of style and content. This too is because of state-dominated schooling. As they say — garbage in, garbage out.
There has been a marked degradation in all forms of literary output during the 20th and 21st centuries. You can see it in post-World War I writing, and it gets much worse post–World War II. Take letter-writing for example. Watch Ken Burns's Civil War documentary, and pay close attention to the letters written by soldiers. The writing of a non-college-educated Civil War infantry grunt had more grace and intelligence than you'll find in just about anything written by a university graduate these days.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Fast And Furious: Operation Gun Runner
ATF Officials in Mexico Denied Access to Information by U.S. Counterparts about Reckless Strategy that Allowed Guns to Fall Into the Hands of Mexican Drug Cartels
Issa, Grassley release staff report focusing on impact of Operation Fast and Furious on Mexico
WASHINGTON – Findings in a second staff report released by Representative Darrell Issa and Senator Chuck Grassley show that ATF officials based in the United States Embassy in Mexico City were increasingly worried about the alarming rate of guns found in violent crimes in Mexico from a single ATF operation based out of the ATF's Phoenix Field Division. Issa is Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and Grassley is Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"The consequences of arming Mexican drug cartels seem obvious. But even guns turning up at crime scenes in Mexico wasn't enough for Justice Department officials to arrest straw purchasers and shut down their trafficking operations. Tragically, it wasn't until Fast and Furious guns were found at the murder scene of a Border Patrol Agent that Justice officials finally ended this reckless and arrogant effort," said Issa.
"It's incomprehensible that officials at the Justice Department, the ATF and the U.S. attorney's office would keep their counterparts at the U.S. embassy in Mexico City in the dark about Operation Fast and Furious. Keeping key details secret while straw purchasers continued buying weapons for gun traffickers jeopardized our relationship with our southern ally and put lives at risk," Grassley said.
The report released today outlines several important findings, including:
• There was little to no information sharing from the Phoenix Field Division, ATF Headquarters and the Justice Department to their colleagues in Mexico City. Every time Mexico City officials asked about the mysterious investigation, their U.S. based ATF counterparts in Phoenix and Washington, D.C. continued to say they were "working on it" and "everything was under control."
• Lanny Breuer, the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the Justice Department, was clearly aware of Operation Fast and Furious and touted the case during a visit to Mexico.
• ATF officials in Mexico City were incredulous that their agency would knowingly allow guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, and they were incensed when they finally began to learn the full scope of Operation Fast and Furious and the investigative techniques used.
Issa and Grassley are leading a congressional inquiry into the ill-advised strategy known as Operation Fast and Furious.
Issa, Grassley release staff report focusing on impact of Operation Fast and Furious on Mexico
WASHINGTON – Findings in a second staff report released by Representative Darrell Issa and Senator Chuck Grassley show that ATF officials based in the United States Embassy in Mexico City were increasingly worried about the alarming rate of guns found in violent crimes in Mexico from a single ATF operation based out of the ATF's Phoenix Field Division. Issa is Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and Grassley is Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"The consequences of arming Mexican drug cartels seem obvious. But even guns turning up at crime scenes in Mexico wasn't enough for Justice Department officials to arrest straw purchasers and shut down their trafficking operations. Tragically, it wasn't until Fast and Furious guns were found at the murder scene of a Border Patrol Agent that Justice officials finally ended this reckless and arrogant effort," said Issa.
"It's incomprehensible that officials at the Justice Department, the ATF and the U.S. attorney's office would keep their counterparts at the U.S. embassy in Mexico City in the dark about Operation Fast and Furious. Keeping key details secret while straw purchasers continued buying weapons for gun traffickers jeopardized our relationship with our southern ally and put lives at risk," Grassley said.
The report released today outlines several important findings, including:
• There was little to no information sharing from the Phoenix Field Division, ATF Headquarters and the Justice Department to their colleagues in Mexico City. Every time Mexico City officials asked about the mysterious investigation, their U.S. based ATF counterparts in Phoenix and Washington, D.C. continued to say they were "working on it" and "everything was under control."
• Lanny Breuer, the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the Justice Department, was clearly aware of Operation Fast and Furious and touted the case during a visit to Mexico.
• ATF officials in Mexico City were incredulous that their agency would knowingly allow guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, and they were incensed when they finally began to learn the full scope of Operation Fast and Furious and the investigative techniques used.
Issa and Grassley are leading a congressional inquiry into the ill-advised strategy known as Operation Fast and Furious.
Atlas Is Shrugging
‘I’m just quitting’: A scene right out of ‘Atlas Shrugged’ in Birmingham
by David McElroy
Full Article: http://www.davidmcelroy.org/?p=1586
If it had been a scene in “Atlas Shrugged,” the guy would have disappeared into the secrecy of Colorado with a shadowy figure who we would later learn to be John Galt. In real life, the story will probably be more complex. But I wonder how long it’s going to be before businesspeople really do start walking away and deciding it’s not worth doing business in America today. Or it it already happening and we just don’t know it?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/right-out-of-atlas-shrugged-hear-an-exasperated-alabama-businessman-tell-the-feds-im-just-quitting/
Ronnie Bryant was vastly outnumbered.
Leaning against a wall during a recent Birmingham, Alabama, public hearing, Bryant listened to an overflow crowd pepper federal officials with concerns about businesses polluting the drinking water and causing cases of cancer.
After two hours, Bryant—a coal mine owner from Jasper—had heard enough and, in a moment being described as “right out of Atlas Shrugged,” took his turn at the microphone:
If you couldn't hear it all here is what he said:
My name’s Ronnie Bryant, and I’m a mine operator…. I’ve been issued a [state] permit in the recent past for [waste water] discharge, and after standing in this room today listening to the comments being made by the people…. [pause] Nearly every day without fail — I have a different perspective — men stream to these [mining] operations looking for work in Walker County. They can’t pay their mortgage. They can’t pay their car note. They can’t feed their families. They don’t have health insurance. And as I stand here today, I just … you know … what’s the use? I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would employ probably 125 people. They’d be paid wages from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. We would consume probably $50 million to $60 million in consumables a year, putting more men to work. And my only idea today is to go home. What’s the use? I don’t know. I mean, I see these guys — I see them with tears in their eyes — looking for work. And if there’s so much opposition to these guys making a living, I feel like there’s no need in me putting out the effort to provide work for them. So as I stood against the wall here today, basically what I’ve decided is not to open the mine. I’m just quitting. Thank you.
by David McElroy
Full Article: http://www.davidmcelroy.org/?p=1586
If it had been a scene in “Atlas Shrugged,” the guy would have disappeared into the secrecy of Colorado with a shadowy figure who we would later learn to be John Galt. In real life, the story will probably be more complex. But I wonder how long it’s going to be before businesspeople really do start walking away and deciding it’s not worth doing business in America today. Or it it already happening and we just don’t know it?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/right-out-of-atlas-shrugged-hear-an-exasperated-alabama-businessman-tell-the-feds-im-just-quitting/
Ronnie Bryant was vastly outnumbered.
Leaning against a wall during a recent Birmingham, Alabama, public hearing, Bryant listened to an overflow crowd pepper federal officials with concerns about businesses polluting the drinking water and causing cases of cancer.
After two hours, Bryant—a coal mine owner from Jasper—had heard enough and, in a moment being described as “right out of Atlas Shrugged,” took his turn at the microphone:
If you couldn't hear it all here is what he said:
My name’s Ronnie Bryant, and I’m a mine operator…. I’ve been issued a [state] permit in the recent past for [waste water] discharge, and after standing in this room today listening to the comments being made by the people…. [pause] Nearly every day without fail — I have a different perspective — men stream to these [mining] operations looking for work in Walker County. They can’t pay their mortgage. They can’t pay their car note. They can’t feed their families. They don’t have health insurance. And as I stand here today, I just … you know … what’s the use? I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would employ probably 125 people. They’d be paid wages from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. We would consume probably $50 million to $60 million in consumables a year, putting more men to work. And my only idea today is to go home. What’s the use? I don’t know. I mean, I see these guys — I see them with tears in their eyes — looking for work. And if there’s so much opposition to these guys making a living, I feel like there’s no need in me putting out the effort to provide work for them. So as I stood against the wall here today, basically what I’ve decided is not to open the mine. I’m just quitting. Thank you.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Prison–industrial complex
From the Ludwig von Mises Blog: http://blog.mises.org/17835/from-3-to-4500-what-laws-have-you-broken-today/
From 3 to 4,500: What laws have you broken today?
July 23, 2011
by Douglas French
The U.S. Constitution mentions three federal crimes by citizens: treason, piracy and counterfeiting. Today, there are an estimated 4,500 crimes in federal statutes, write Gary Fields and John R. Emshwiller for the Wall Street Journal.
Clarence Darrow anticipated the prison nation that America is today a hundred years ago in his book Resist Not Evil. All areas of life have become part of the penal code, with an army of people operating as police, legislators, and the court system to enforce these laws through force and violence. But even Darrow wouldn’t have dreamed that the unauthorized use of the Smokey Bear image, or of the slogan “Give a Hoot, Don’t Pollute” can land a person in federal prison.
Fields and Emshwiller’s frightening article tells about a father and son chased by the Feds for unknowingly digging on federal ground for arrowheads. “The Andersons are two of the hundreds of thousands of Americans to be charged and convicted in recent decades under federal criminal laws—as opposed to state or local laws—as the federal justice system has dramatically expanded its authority and reach.”
The Amercian Bar Association can’t even tally up the federal offenses exactly but believe the number exceeds 3,000. The ABA’s report said “the amount of individual citizen behavior now potentially subject to federal criminal control has increased in astonishing proportions in the last few decades.”
A Justice spokeswoman told the WSJ, that there was no quantifiable number. “Criminal statutes are sprinkled throughout some 27,000 pages of the federal code,” write Fields and Emshwiller.
These crimes of the state’s making are sending 83,000 people a year to federal prison. While the US population has grown 36% in the past three decades, three times more people are going to prison, with immigration and drug violations making up over 60% of the offenses in 2010. The federal prison population has grown eight fold during this period.
Of course much of the public cheers on the increasing prison state.
Roscoe Howard, the former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, argues that the system “isn’t broken.” Congress, he says, took its cue over the decades from a public less tolerant of certain behaviors. Current law provides a range of options to protect society, he says. “It would be horrible if they started repealing laws and taking those options away.”
One wonders if Howard believes 77-year-old race-car legend Bobby Unser deserves to have a criminal record “for accidentally driving a snowmobile onto protected federal land, violating the Wilderness Act, while lost in a snowstorm.” Or whether a Pennsylvania woman who violated a 1998 federal chemical-weapons law tied to an international arms-control treaty should spend six years in prison. The woman spread some chemicals that burned her husband’s paramour on the thumb.
The woman has challenged the law’s constitutionality and the Supreme Court is sympathetic.
During oral arguments in the case, Justice Samuel Alito expressed concern about the law’s “breadth” by laying out a hypothetical example. Simply pouring a bottle of vinegar into a bowl to kill someone’s goldfish, Justice Alito said, could be “potentially punishable by life imprisonment.”
And this is today’s justice system? Darrow wrote in 1902,
the state furnishes no machinery for arriving at justice. [It] has no way of arriving at the facts. If the state pretends to administer justice this should be its highest concern. It should not be interested in convicting men or punishing crime, but administering justice between men. It is obvious to the most casual observer that the state furnishes no machinery to accomplish this result.
http://blog.mises.org/17835/from-3-to-4500-what-laws-have-you-broken-today/
From 3 to 4,500: What laws have you broken today?
July 23, 2011
by Douglas French
The U.S. Constitution mentions three federal crimes by citizens: treason, piracy and counterfeiting. Today, there are an estimated 4,500 crimes in federal statutes, write Gary Fields and John R. Emshwiller for the Wall Street Journal.
Clarence Darrow anticipated the prison nation that America is today a hundred years ago in his book Resist Not Evil. All areas of life have become part of the penal code, with an army of people operating as police, legislators, and the court system to enforce these laws through force and violence. But even Darrow wouldn’t have dreamed that the unauthorized use of the Smokey Bear image, or of the slogan “Give a Hoot, Don’t Pollute” can land a person in federal prison.
Fields and Emshwiller’s frightening article tells about a father and son chased by the Feds for unknowingly digging on federal ground for arrowheads. “The Andersons are two of the hundreds of thousands of Americans to be charged and convicted in recent decades under federal criminal laws—as opposed to state or local laws—as the federal justice system has dramatically expanded its authority and reach.”
The Amercian Bar Association can’t even tally up the federal offenses exactly but believe the number exceeds 3,000. The ABA’s report said “the amount of individual citizen behavior now potentially subject to federal criminal control has increased in astonishing proportions in the last few decades.”
A Justice spokeswoman told the WSJ, that there was no quantifiable number. “Criminal statutes are sprinkled throughout some 27,000 pages of the federal code,” write Fields and Emshwiller.
These crimes of the state’s making are sending 83,000 people a year to federal prison. While the US population has grown 36% in the past three decades, three times more people are going to prison, with immigration and drug violations making up over 60% of the offenses in 2010. The federal prison population has grown eight fold during this period.
Of course much of the public cheers on the increasing prison state.
Roscoe Howard, the former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, argues that the system “isn’t broken.” Congress, he says, took its cue over the decades from a public less tolerant of certain behaviors. Current law provides a range of options to protect society, he says. “It would be horrible if they started repealing laws and taking those options away.”
One wonders if Howard believes 77-year-old race-car legend Bobby Unser deserves to have a criminal record “for accidentally driving a snowmobile onto protected federal land, violating the Wilderness Act, while lost in a snowstorm.” Or whether a Pennsylvania woman who violated a 1998 federal chemical-weapons law tied to an international arms-control treaty should spend six years in prison. The woman spread some chemicals that burned her husband’s paramour on the thumb.
The woman has challenged the law’s constitutionality and the Supreme Court is sympathetic.
During oral arguments in the case, Justice Samuel Alito expressed concern about the law’s “breadth” by laying out a hypothetical example. Simply pouring a bottle of vinegar into a bowl to kill someone’s goldfish, Justice Alito said, could be “potentially punishable by life imprisonment.”
And this is today’s justice system? Darrow wrote in 1902,
the state furnishes no machinery for arriving at justice. [It] has no way of arriving at the facts. If the state pretends to administer justice this should be its highest concern. It should not be interested in convicting men or punishing crime, but administering justice between men. It is obvious to the most casual observer that the state furnishes no machinery to accomplish this result.
http://blog.mises.org/17835/from-3-to-4500-what-laws-have-you-broken-today/
Terror Warning Warns of Insider Threat to Infrastructure - ABC News
Terror Warning Warns of Insider Threat to Infrastructure - ABC News
Sabotage by an insider at a major utility facility, including a chemical or oil refinery, could provide al Qaeda with its best opportunity for the kind of massive Sept. 11 anniversary attack Osama bin Laden was planning, according to U.S. officials.
A new intelligence report from the Department of Homeland Security issued Tuesday, titled Insider Threat to Utilities, warns "violent extremists have, in fact, obtained insider positions," and that "outsiders have attempted to solicit utility-sector employees" for damaging physical and cyber attacks.
"Based on the reliable reporting of previous incidents, we have high confidence in our judgment that insiders and their actions pose a significant threat to the infrastructure and information systems of U.S. facilities," the bulletin reads in part. "Past events and reporting also provide high confidence in our judgment that insider information on sites, infrastructure, networks, and personnel is valuable to our adversaries and may increase the impact of any attack on the utilities infrastructure."
After gaining access to such sites, causing mayhem could be relatively easy, according to former White House counter-terrorism advisor and ABC News consultant Richard Clarke.
"There are a lot of very sensitive facilities where someone can get a job on the inside, get access to a control room, flip a switch, which causes an electric power grid to short circuit, causes a pipeline to explode," Clarke said.
Read Full Article: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/terror-alert-warns-insider-threat-infrastructure/story?id=14118119
Sabotage by an insider at a major utility facility, including a chemical or oil refinery, could provide al Qaeda with its best opportunity for the kind of massive Sept. 11 anniversary attack Osama bin Laden was planning, according to U.S. officials.
A new intelligence report from the Department of Homeland Security issued Tuesday, titled Insider Threat to Utilities, warns "violent extremists have, in fact, obtained insider positions," and that "outsiders have attempted to solicit utility-sector employees" for damaging physical and cyber attacks.
"Based on the reliable reporting of previous incidents, we have high confidence in our judgment that insiders and their actions pose a significant threat to the infrastructure and information systems of U.S. facilities," the bulletin reads in part. "Past events and reporting also provide high confidence in our judgment that insider information on sites, infrastructure, networks, and personnel is valuable to our adversaries and may increase the impact of any attack on the utilities infrastructure."
After gaining access to such sites, causing mayhem could be relatively easy, according to former White House counter-terrorism advisor and ABC News consultant Richard Clarke.
"There are a lot of very sensitive facilities where someone can get a job on the inside, get access to a control room, flip a switch, which causes an electric power grid to short circuit, causes a pipeline to explode," Clarke said.
Read Full Article: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/terror-alert-warns-insider-threat-infrastructure/story?id=14118119
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Quick Where's Mulder and Scully?
150 human animal hybrids grown in UK labs: Embryos have been produced secretively for the past three yearsBy Daniel Martin and Simon Caldwell
Last updated at 12:42 AM on 23rd July 2011
Scientists have created more than 150 human-animal hybrid embryos in British laboratories.
The hybrids have been produced secretively over the past three years by researchers looking into possible cures for a wide range of diseases.
The revelation comes just a day after a committee of scientists warned of a nightmare ‘Planet of the Apes’ scenario in which work on human-animal creations goes too far.
Last night a campaigner against the excesses of medical research said he was disgusted that scientists were ‘dabbling in the grotesque’.
Figures seen by the Daily Mail show that 155 ‘admixed’ embryos, containing both human and animal genetic material, have been created since the introduction of the 2008 Human Fertilisation Embryology Act.
This legalised the creation of a variety of hybrids, including an animal egg fertilised by a human sperm; ‘cybrids’, in which a human nucleus is implanted into an animal cell; and ‘chimeras’, in which human cells are mixed with animal embryos.
Scientists say the techniques can be used to develop embryonic stem cells which can be used to treat a range of incurable illnesses. Three labs in the UK – at King’s College London, Newcastle University and Warwick University – were granted licences to carry out the research after the Act came into force. All have now stopped creating hybrid embryos due to a lack of funding, but scientists believe that there will be more such work in the future.
The figure was revealed to crossbench peer Lord Alton following a Parliamentary question.
Last night he said: ‘I argued in Parliament against the creation of human- animal hybrids as a matter of principle. None of the scientists who appeared before us could give us any justification in terms of treatment. ‘Ethically it can never be justifiable – it discredits us as a country. It is dabbling in the grotesque.
‘At every stage the justification from scientists has been: if only you allow us to do this, we will find cures for every illness known to mankind. This is emotional blackmail. ‘Of the 80 treatments and cures which have come about from stem cells, all have come from adult stem cells – not embryonic ones. ‘On moral and ethical grounds this fails; and on scientific and medical ones too.’ Josephine Quintavalle, of pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: ‘I am aghast that this is going on and we didn’t know anything about it.
‘Why have they kept this a secret? If they are proud of what they are doing, why do we need to ask Parliamentary questions for this to come to light? ‘The problem with many scientists is that they want to do things because they want to experiment. That is not a good enough rationale.’
Earlier this week, a group of leading scientists warned about ‘Planet of the Apes’ experiments. They called for new rules to prevent lab animals being given human attributes, for example by injecting human stem cells into the brains of primates.
But the lead author of their report, Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, from the Medical Research Council’ s National Institute for Medical Research, said the scientists were not concerned about human-animal hybrid embryos because by law these have to be destroyed within 14 days.
He said: ‘The reason for doing these experiments is to understand more about early human development and come up with ways of curing serious diseases, and as a scientist I feel there is a moral imperative to pursue this research. ‘As long as we have sufficient controls – as we do in this country – we should be proud of the research.’
However, he called for stricter controls on another type of embryo research, in which animal embryos are implanted with a small amount of human genetic material. Human-animal hybrids are also created in other countries, many of which have little or no regulation.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017818/Embryos-involving-genes-animals-mixed-humans-produced-secretively-past-years.html#ixzz1StwSiE6l
Last updated at 12:42 AM on 23rd July 2011
Scientists have created more than 150 human-animal hybrid embryos in British laboratories.
The hybrids have been produced secretively over the past three years by researchers looking into possible cures for a wide range of diseases.
The revelation comes just a day after a committee of scientists warned of a nightmare ‘Planet of the Apes’ scenario in which work on human-animal creations goes too far.
Last night a campaigner against the excesses of medical research said he was disgusted that scientists were ‘dabbling in the grotesque’.
Figures seen by the Daily Mail show that 155 ‘admixed’ embryos, containing both human and animal genetic material, have been created since the introduction of the 2008 Human Fertilisation Embryology Act.
This legalised the creation of a variety of hybrids, including an animal egg fertilised by a human sperm; ‘cybrids’, in which a human nucleus is implanted into an animal cell; and ‘chimeras’, in which human cells are mixed with animal embryos.
Scientists say the techniques can be used to develop embryonic stem cells which can be used to treat a range of incurable illnesses. Three labs in the UK – at King’s College London, Newcastle University and Warwick University – were granted licences to carry out the research after the Act came into force. All have now stopped creating hybrid embryos due to a lack of funding, but scientists believe that there will be more such work in the future.
The figure was revealed to crossbench peer Lord Alton following a Parliamentary question.
Last night he said: ‘I argued in Parliament against the creation of human- animal hybrids as a matter of principle. None of the scientists who appeared before us could give us any justification in terms of treatment. ‘Ethically it can never be justifiable – it discredits us as a country. It is dabbling in the grotesque.
‘At every stage the justification from scientists has been: if only you allow us to do this, we will find cures for every illness known to mankind. This is emotional blackmail. ‘Of the 80 treatments and cures which have come about from stem cells, all have come from adult stem cells – not embryonic ones. ‘On moral and ethical grounds this fails; and on scientific and medical ones too.’ Josephine Quintavalle, of pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: ‘I am aghast that this is going on and we didn’t know anything about it.
‘Why have they kept this a secret? If they are proud of what they are doing, why do we need to ask Parliamentary questions for this to come to light? ‘The problem with many scientists is that they want to do things because they want to experiment. That is not a good enough rationale.’
Earlier this week, a group of leading scientists warned about ‘Planet of the Apes’ experiments. They called for new rules to prevent lab animals being given human attributes, for example by injecting human stem cells into the brains of primates.
But the lead author of their report, Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, from the Medical Research Council’ s National Institute for Medical Research, said the scientists were not concerned about human-animal hybrid embryos because by law these have to be destroyed within 14 days.
He said: ‘The reason for doing these experiments is to understand more about early human development and come up with ways of curing serious diseases, and as a scientist I feel there is a moral imperative to pursue this research. ‘As long as we have sufficient controls – as we do in this country – we should be proud of the research.’
However, he called for stricter controls on another type of embryo research, in which animal embryos are implanted with a small amount of human genetic material. Human-animal hybrids are also created in other countries, many of which have little or no regulation.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017818/Embryos-involving-genes-animals-mixed-humans-produced-secretively-past-years.html#ixzz1StwSiE6l
Friday, July 22, 2011
This Cop Needs To Go To Jail: His Name Daniel Harless
Officer Daniel Harless
Officer Daniel Harless
Officer Daniel Harless
Cop Threatens to Kill Concealed Carry Gun Owner During Traffic Stop
Canton Oh,
A police officer’s dash cam in Canton, OH caught a disturbing exchange last month between a cop and a driver during a traffic stop. In it, the cop can be heard (and seen) berating a man for not telling the officer immediately that he had a concealed carry permit and thus a concealed weapon, even saying at one point he should have killed the gun owner. But there’s just one problem: the man tried several times but the officer cut him off.
“I could blast you in the mouth right now!” the officer says in the video after finding out about the man’s gun. “I’m so close to caving in your Godda**ed head,” he adds. “You fu** with me! You’re just a stupid human being!”
He continues: “Fu**ing talking to me with a Godd***ed gun! You want me to pull mine and stick it to your head? … I tell you what I should have done. As soon as I saw your gun I should have taken two steps back, pulled my Glock 40 and put ten bullets in your ass and let you drop.”
“And I wouldn’t have lost any sleep!” he screams.
The officer can also be heard threatening to “put lumps” on a woman also involved in the traffic stop.
William, luckily, didn’t get his mouth blasted or his head caved in. But now, he is being charged with failure to notify — even though he tried.
Ohioans For Concealed Carry (OFCC) obtained the video and explains what happened on June 8, 2011:
Early that Wednesday morning, William pulled his car to the side of the road to let out two passengers, but only the female occupant managed to exit before the police pulled up and began screaming at all three parties. “Stay in that car, I’m not going to mess around,” screamed one of the officers at the two people attempting to exit the vehicle. The driver and concealed handgun licensee, William, remained seated in his vehicle when an officer entered the rear of the vehicle.
William stated, “I have a concealed carry, and…” when he was abruptly told to shut up. Dash camera video footage shows the driver turning his head, and his voice can be heard, but the words are inaudible. A few minutes passed while the officer continued to berate the two passengers. He proceeded to the driver’s side and tries to open the door but is delayed by a seat belt. William states “I have a conceal…” and the officer demands that he better tell the truth or else! This interruption causes William to “tell the truth” and his attempt to notify is interrupted. William exited the vehicle with his driver’s license in the same hand as his concealed handgun license. He held it up for the officer to see, and the officer said, “Why are you having that?” This gave William the opportunity to say, “I have a CCW, and…” The officer then said, “Do you have a gun?” William answered yes, causing the officer to grab it from William’s waist.
At this point, William was handcuffed and put into the police cruiser. The officer then started to berate William, stating: “I [could] blast you in the mouth right now … I’m close to caving in your head.“ and ”you’re just a stupid human being!”
You can watch the events unfold below, and OFCC gives a play-by-play with some included text. WARNING, though, it does contain some graphic language:
WJW-TV reports Officer Daniel Harless was placed on leave after the June 8 incident, although it doesn’t note how soon after the incident the action took place.
However, a report by the Canton Repository reveals more details. According to its story, Harless was placed on leave on June 20 pending the completion of an internal investigation. And according to the paper, Harless has a history of complaints against him — he has faced 16 internal affairs investigations since 2000 and been reprimanded in the past:
Harless, 45, an Ohio native and former Marine worked as a police officer in Virginia for four years before coming to Canton in 1996.
During his career he has earned several commendations.
One was from a Virginia judge, who praised the way Harless handled a situation involving a man with a gun, according to records in his city personnel file.
Canton’s internal affairs unit has investigated 16 complaints involving Harless dating back to 2000.
He was reprimanded in one 2003 case. Harless and another officer were exonerated of using excessive force, but were given a letter of reprimand for not activating the in-car video camera at the scene per department policy.
Once the investigation into Harless is completed he will face a disciplinary hearing, Police Chief Dean McKimm told WJW.
“I think it’s important for citizens to understand that the behavior demonstrated on the video is wholly unacceptable, and it violates many of our rules, our regulations and standards we demand of our officers,” the chief told the Repository.
“The city administration, in conjunction with the police department, recognizes the seriousness of this matter,” he added.
Perhaps surprisingly, the Repository reports the police union head — Bill Adams — is not throwing his support, at least publicly, behind Harless:
“Obviously whatever transpired on that video is an isolated incident,” Adams said. “It happened and it’s being handled properly right now and the chief is doing what he feels is necessary.”
Adams said calls involving guns can be emotional and dangerous situations, but he wasn’t condoning anything that might have happened on the recording.
“We’re a very well-trained and well-rounded police department that has solid officers that can make good, solid decisions every day,” he said. “You can’t (take) one incident like this and make it like every (officer) is out of control.”
The gun owner’s full name has also been revealed. He is 52-year-old William E. Bartlett, of Brewster, OH.
The story has quickly become a staple on the internet. Ohioans For Concealed Carry, which first posted the video and is raising money for Bartlett’s defense, says that the response was so large it shut down the group’s website temporarily.
“Shortly after 7:00pm Thursday our website could no longer handle the volume of visitors we were receiving,” the group says on its website. “We promptly quadrupled the resources behind OhioCCW.org in light of the popularity of this story.”
Now a little of what I have to say about the matter. They need to throw the back of the jail out with this F@#king cop. He is one of the biggest pieces of s@#t I have ever heard. Saying about this guy that he is talking to a cop and he has a "goddamn gun on him." Well so the hell what? Cops have goddamn guns on them everytime we talk to their asses. Are we tired of this stuff yet America? We have a right to keep and BEAR arms, didn't get the memo you dirty ass cop? These BS laws we have in these states are unreal. Don't people get it that we are giving away our freedoms by getting a license to carry a gun in the first place? A license is something you get when you don't feel like you have the right to do something in the first place. Want to drive on government roads, get a license. Want to get "legally" married and get tax breaks, get a license. All of these things are making us slaves. Its all BS. Just as an example what did a slave have to do if they want to get married and have children? Well they had to ask their master if it was alright to get married and have children. What do we do? Well we ask the state if it's alright if we get married. Do we really think that it is alright in our society to let mentally deranged cops like Daniel Harless go around with guns and nobody question it, but as soon as a civilian is seen with a gun all hell breaks loose. I can not begin to tell you how anger this abuse of power makes me, and it happens all the damn time. Throw this damn cop Daniel Harless in prison!!!! He threatened to kill someone. How can this block head cop call anybody an idiot? He is the biggest one out there especially with this kind of talk, "I don't believe a shit nothing." Ya all brains there. Later on in the video this stupid cop Daniel Harless says that he is going to put this guys car in the computer and whenever he sees it he is going to pull him over "everytime." Sounds like harassment to me.
I have got to go this burns me up.
Throw this damn cop Daniel Harless in prison!!!!
Throw this damn cop Daniel Harless in prison!!!!
Throw this damn cop Daniel Harless in prison!!!!
Throw this damn cop Daniel Harless in prison!!!!
From: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/you-fu-with-me-cop-threatens-concealed-carry-gun-owner-during-traffic-stop/
Officer Daniel Harless
Officer Daniel Harless
Cop Threatens to Kill Concealed Carry Gun Owner During Traffic Stop
Canton Oh,
A police officer’s dash cam in Canton, OH caught a disturbing exchange last month between a cop and a driver during a traffic stop. In it, the cop can be heard (and seen) berating a man for not telling the officer immediately that he had a concealed carry permit and thus a concealed weapon, even saying at one point he should have killed the gun owner. But there’s just one problem: the man tried several times but the officer cut him off.
“I could blast you in the mouth right now!” the officer says in the video after finding out about the man’s gun. “I’m so close to caving in your Godda**ed head,” he adds. “You fu** with me! You’re just a stupid human being!”
He continues: “Fu**ing talking to me with a Godd***ed gun! You want me to pull mine and stick it to your head? … I tell you what I should have done. As soon as I saw your gun I should have taken two steps back, pulled my Glock 40 and put ten bullets in your ass and let you drop.”
“And I wouldn’t have lost any sleep!” he screams.
The officer can also be heard threatening to “put lumps” on a woman also involved in the traffic stop.
William, luckily, didn’t get his mouth blasted or his head caved in. But now, he is being charged with failure to notify — even though he tried.
Ohioans For Concealed Carry (OFCC) obtained the video and explains what happened on June 8, 2011:
Early that Wednesday morning, William pulled his car to the side of the road to let out two passengers, but only the female occupant managed to exit before the police pulled up and began screaming at all three parties. “Stay in that car, I’m not going to mess around,” screamed one of the officers at the two people attempting to exit the vehicle. The driver and concealed handgun licensee, William, remained seated in his vehicle when an officer entered the rear of the vehicle.
William stated, “I have a concealed carry, and…” when he was abruptly told to shut up. Dash camera video footage shows the driver turning his head, and his voice can be heard, but the words are inaudible. A few minutes passed while the officer continued to berate the two passengers. He proceeded to the driver’s side and tries to open the door but is delayed by a seat belt. William states “I have a conceal…” and the officer demands that he better tell the truth or else! This interruption causes William to “tell the truth” and his attempt to notify is interrupted. William exited the vehicle with his driver’s license in the same hand as his concealed handgun license. He held it up for the officer to see, and the officer said, “Why are you having that?” This gave William the opportunity to say, “I have a CCW, and…” The officer then said, “Do you have a gun?” William answered yes, causing the officer to grab it from William’s waist.
At this point, William was handcuffed and put into the police cruiser. The officer then started to berate William, stating: “I [could] blast you in the mouth right now … I’m close to caving in your head.“ and ”you’re just a stupid human being!”
You can watch the events unfold below, and OFCC gives a play-by-play with some included text. WARNING, though, it does contain some graphic language:
WJW-TV reports Officer Daniel Harless was placed on leave after the June 8 incident, although it doesn’t note how soon after the incident the action took place.
However, a report by the Canton Repository reveals more details. According to its story, Harless was placed on leave on June 20 pending the completion of an internal investigation. And according to the paper, Harless has a history of complaints against him — he has faced 16 internal affairs investigations since 2000 and been reprimanded in the past:
Harless, 45, an Ohio native and former Marine worked as a police officer in Virginia for four years before coming to Canton in 1996.
During his career he has earned several commendations.
One was from a Virginia judge, who praised the way Harless handled a situation involving a man with a gun, according to records in his city personnel file.
Canton’s internal affairs unit has investigated 16 complaints involving Harless dating back to 2000.
He was reprimanded in one 2003 case. Harless and another officer were exonerated of using excessive force, but were given a letter of reprimand for not activating the in-car video camera at the scene per department policy.
Once the investigation into Harless is completed he will face a disciplinary hearing, Police Chief Dean McKimm told WJW.
“I think it’s important for citizens to understand that the behavior demonstrated on the video is wholly unacceptable, and it violates many of our rules, our regulations and standards we demand of our officers,” the chief told the Repository.
“The city administration, in conjunction with the police department, recognizes the seriousness of this matter,” he added.
Perhaps surprisingly, the Repository reports the police union head — Bill Adams — is not throwing his support, at least publicly, behind Harless:
“Obviously whatever transpired on that video is an isolated incident,” Adams said. “It happened and it’s being handled properly right now and the chief is doing what he feels is necessary.”
Adams said calls involving guns can be emotional and dangerous situations, but he wasn’t condoning anything that might have happened on the recording.
“We’re a very well-trained and well-rounded police department that has solid officers that can make good, solid decisions every day,” he said. “You can’t (take) one incident like this and make it like every (officer) is out of control.”
The gun owner’s full name has also been revealed. He is 52-year-old William E. Bartlett, of Brewster, OH.
The story has quickly become a staple on the internet. Ohioans For Concealed Carry, which first posted the video and is raising money for Bartlett’s defense, says that the response was so large it shut down the group’s website temporarily.
“Shortly after 7:00pm Thursday our website could no longer handle the volume of visitors we were receiving,” the group says on its website. “We promptly quadrupled the resources behind OhioCCW.org in light of the popularity of this story.”
Now a little of what I have to say about the matter. They need to throw the back of the jail out with this F@#king cop. He is one of the biggest pieces of s@#t I have ever heard. Saying about this guy that he is talking to a cop and he has a "goddamn gun on him." Well so the hell what? Cops have goddamn guns on them everytime we talk to their asses. Are we tired of this stuff yet America? We have a right to keep and BEAR arms, didn't get the memo you dirty ass cop? These BS laws we have in these states are unreal. Don't people get it that we are giving away our freedoms by getting a license to carry a gun in the first place? A license is something you get when you don't feel like you have the right to do something in the first place. Want to drive on government roads, get a license. Want to get "legally" married and get tax breaks, get a license. All of these things are making us slaves. Its all BS. Just as an example what did a slave have to do if they want to get married and have children? Well they had to ask their master if it was alright to get married and have children. What do we do? Well we ask the state if it's alright if we get married. Do we really think that it is alright in our society to let mentally deranged cops like Daniel Harless go around with guns and nobody question it, but as soon as a civilian is seen with a gun all hell breaks loose. I can not begin to tell you how anger this abuse of power makes me, and it happens all the damn time. Throw this damn cop Daniel Harless in prison!!!! He threatened to kill someone. How can this block head cop call anybody an idiot? He is the biggest one out there especially with this kind of talk, "I don't believe a shit nothing." Ya all brains there. Later on in the video this stupid cop Daniel Harless says that he is going to put this guys car in the computer and whenever he sees it he is going to pull him over "everytime." Sounds like harassment to me.
I have got to go this burns me up.
Throw this damn cop Daniel Harless in prison!!!!
Throw this damn cop Daniel Harless in prison!!!!
Throw this damn cop Daniel Harless in prison!!!!
Throw this damn cop Daniel Harless in prison!!!!
From: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/you-fu-with-me-cop-threatens-concealed-carry-gun-owner-during-traffic-stop/
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Saturday, July 16, 2011
A Little On The Fourth Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.
Like many other areas of American law, the Fourth Amendment finds its roots in English legal doctrine. Sir Edward Coke, in Semayne's case (1604), famously stated: "The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose."[1] Semayne's Case acknowledged that the King did not have unbridled authority to intrude on his subjects' dwellings but recognized that government agents were permitted to conduct searches and seizures under certain conditions when their purpose was lawful and a warrant had been obtained.[2]
In Colonial America, legislation was explicitly written to enforce English revenue gathering policies on customs.[2] Until 1750, all handbooks for justices of the peace, the issuers of warrants, contained or described only general warrants.[2] William Cuddihy, Ph.D. in his dissertation entitled The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning,[3] claims there existed a "colonial epidemic of general searches." According to him, until the 1760s, a "man's house was even less of a legal castle in America than in England" as the authorities possessed almost unlimited power and little oversight.
James OtisIn 1756, the colony of Massachusetts enacted legislation that barred the use of general warrants. This represented the first law in American history curtailing the use of seizure power. Its creation largely stemmed from the great public outcry over the Excise Act of 1754, which gave tax collectors unlimited powers to interrogate colonists concerning their use of goods subject to customs and permitted the use of a general warrant known as a writ of assistance, allowing them to search the homes of colonists and seize “prohibited and uncustomed” goods.[4]
A crisis erupted over the writs of assistance on December 27, 1760 when the news of King George II's October 23 death arrived in Boston. All writs automatically expired six months after the death of the King and would have had to be re-issued under the name of the new King, George III, to remain valid.[5]
In mid-January 1761, a group of over 50 merchants represented by James Otis, petitioned the court to have hearings on the issue. During the five hour hearing on February 23, 1761, Otis vehemently denounced English colonial policies, including their sanction of general warrants and writs of assistance.[6] However, the court ruled against Otis.[7] Because of the name he had made for himself in attacking the writs, he was elected to the Massachusetts colonial legislature and helped pass legislation requiring that special writs of assistance be “granted by any judge or justice of the peace upon information under oath by any officer of the customs” and barring all other writs. The governor overturned the legislation, finding it contrary to British law and parliamentary sovereignty.[8] John Adams, who was present in the courtroom when Otis spoke, viewed these events “as the spark in which originated the American Revolution.” [9]
Seeing the danger general warrants presented, the Virginia Declaration of Rights explicitly forbade the use of general warrants. This prohibition became precedent for the Fourth Amendment:[10]
That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.[11][12]
Article XIV of the Massachusetts Declaration of the Rights written by John Adams and enacted in 1780 as part of Massachusetts Constitution added the requirement that all searches must be “reasonable” and served as the basis for the language of the Fourth Amendment:
Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities, prescribed by the laws.[13]
The Fourth Amendment has been held to mean that generally a warrant must be judicially sanctioned for a search or an arrest.
In order for such a warrant to be considered reasonable, it must be supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information supplied by a person (usually a law enforcement officer) who has sworn by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court.
Under Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. In Terry, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that leads that officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot", that the suspicious person has a weapon and that the person is presently dangerous to the officer or others, the officer may conduct a "pat-down search" (or "frisk") to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon. To conduct a frisk, officers must be able to point to specific and articulatory facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant their actions. A vague hunch will not do. Such a search must be temporary and questioning must be limited to the purpose of the stop (e.g., officers who stop a person because they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person was driving a stolen car, cannot, after confirming that it is not stolen, compel the person to answer questions about anything else, such as the possession of contraband).[21]
For years now our government has found "exceptions" to our fourth amendment rights, along with many others, when the facts just do not back them up. Like Calvin Coolidge was saying in one of my earlier post this month some things are final. You have a right to bear arms, that is final. You have a right to free speech, that is final. You have a right to be secure in your person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. And this 'shall not be violated," that is final.
1.^ Coke's Rep. 91a, 77 Eng. Rep. 194 (K.B. 1604)
2.^ a b c d *Kilman, Johnny and George Costello (Eds) (2006). "The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation". GPO. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html. pp. 1281–1282.
3.^ W. Cuddihy, The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning (1990) (Ph.D. Dissertation at Claremont Graduate School)
4.^ Davies (1999)
5.^ Kinvin Wroth and Hiller B. Zobel, eds, Legal Papers of Adams II, p. 113, fn 22 (1965) “The writs of assistance did not become an issue until news of King George II’s death arrived in Boston December 27, 1760.”
6.^ Kinvin Wroth and Hiller B. Zobel, eds, Legal Papers of Adams II, p. 113, fn 23 (1965)
7.^ Lasson (1937), pp. 57–61
8.^ Lasson (1937), p. 66
9.^ Adams, Charles Francis, and John Adams (1856). The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author. Volume: 1. Little, Brown. pp. 59.
10.^ Levy (1995), p. 161
11.^ Article X of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, Levy (1995), p. 161
12.^ Levy (1995), pp. 162–164
13.^ Mass. Const. pt. 1, art. XIV.
14.^ United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984): "This Court has ... consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official." (punctuation omitted).
15.^ For example, see Article 1, § 7 of the Tennessee Constitution.
16.^ Lasson (1937), p. 106
17.^ Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967) (speculating that there may be "items of evidential value whose very nature precludes them from being the object of a reasonable search and seizure")
18.^ Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004)
19.^ Tennessee v. Garner 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
20.^ "No less than an individual in a business office, in a friend's apartment, or in a taxicab, a person in a telephone booth may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment. One who occupies it, shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume that the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 352 (1967).
21.^ Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497–98, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1324 (1983).
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.
Like many other areas of American law, the Fourth Amendment finds its roots in English legal doctrine. Sir Edward Coke, in Semayne's case (1604), famously stated: "The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose."[1] Semayne's Case acknowledged that the King did not have unbridled authority to intrude on his subjects' dwellings but recognized that government agents were permitted to conduct searches and seizures under certain conditions when their purpose was lawful and a warrant had been obtained.[2]
In Colonial America, legislation was explicitly written to enforce English revenue gathering policies on customs.[2] Until 1750, all handbooks for justices of the peace, the issuers of warrants, contained or described only general warrants.[2] William Cuddihy, Ph.D. in his dissertation entitled The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning,[3] claims there existed a "colonial epidemic of general searches." According to him, until the 1760s, a "man's house was even less of a legal castle in America than in England" as the authorities possessed almost unlimited power and little oversight.
James OtisIn 1756, the colony of Massachusetts enacted legislation that barred the use of general warrants. This represented the first law in American history curtailing the use of seizure power. Its creation largely stemmed from the great public outcry over the Excise Act of 1754, which gave tax collectors unlimited powers to interrogate colonists concerning their use of goods subject to customs and permitted the use of a general warrant known as a writ of assistance, allowing them to search the homes of colonists and seize “prohibited and uncustomed” goods.[4]
A crisis erupted over the writs of assistance on December 27, 1760 when the news of King George II's October 23 death arrived in Boston. All writs automatically expired six months after the death of the King and would have had to be re-issued under the name of the new King, George III, to remain valid.[5]
In mid-January 1761, a group of over 50 merchants represented by James Otis, petitioned the court to have hearings on the issue. During the five hour hearing on February 23, 1761, Otis vehemently denounced English colonial policies, including their sanction of general warrants and writs of assistance.[6] However, the court ruled against Otis.[7] Because of the name he had made for himself in attacking the writs, he was elected to the Massachusetts colonial legislature and helped pass legislation requiring that special writs of assistance be “granted by any judge or justice of the peace upon information under oath by any officer of the customs” and barring all other writs. The governor overturned the legislation, finding it contrary to British law and parliamentary sovereignty.[8] John Adams, who was present in the courtroom when Otis spoke, viewed these events “as the spark in which originated the American Revolution.” [9]
Seeing the danger general warrants presented, the Virginia Declaration of Rights explicitly forbade the use of general warrants. This prohibition became precedent for the Fourth Amendment:[10]
That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.[11][12]
Article XIV of the Massachusetts Declaration of the Rights written by John Adams and enacted in 1780 as part of Massachusetts Constitution added the requirement that all searches must be “reasonable” and served as the basis for the language of the Fourth Amendment:
Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities, prescribed by the laws.[13]
The Fourth Amendment has been held to mean that generally a warrant must be judicially sanctioned for a search or an arrest.
In order for such a warrant to be considered reasonable, it must be supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information supplied by a person (usually a law enforcement officer) who has sworn by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court.
Under Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. In Terry, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that leads that officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot", that the suspicious person has a weapon and that the person is presently dangerous to the officer or others, the officer may conduct a "pat-down search" (or "frisk") to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon. To conduct a frisk, officers must be able to point to specific and articulatory facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant their actions. A vague hunch will not do. Such a search must be temporary and questioning must be limited to the purpose of the stop (e.g., officers who stop a person because they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person was driving a stolen car, cannot, after confirming that it is not stolen, compel the person to answer questions about anything else, such as the possession of contraband).[21]
For years now our government has found "exceptions" to our fourth amendment rights, along with many others, when the facts just do not back them up. Like Calvin Coolidge was saying in one of my earlier post this month some things are final. You have a right to bear arms, that is final. You have a right to free speech, that is final. You have a right to be secure in your person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. And this 'shall not be violated," that is final.
1.^ Coke's Rep. 91a, 77 Eng. Rep. 194 (K.B. 1604)
2.^ a b c d *Kilman, Johnny and George Costello (Eds) (2006). "The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation". GPO. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html. pp. 1281–1282.
3.^ W. Cuddihy, The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning (1990) (Ph.D. Dissertation at Claremont Graduate School)
4.^ Davies (1999)
5.^ Kinvin Wroth and Hiller B. Zobel, eds, Legal Papers of Adams II, p. 113, fn 22 (1965) “The writs of assistance did not become an issue until news of King George II’s death arrived in Boston December 27, 1760.”
6.^ Kinvin Wroth and Hiller B. Zobel, eds, Legal Papers of Adams II, p. 113, fn 23 (1965)
7.^ Lasson (1937), pp. 57–61
8.^ Lasson (1937), p. 66
9.^ Adams, Charles Francis, and John Adams (1856). The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author. Volume: 1. Little, Brown. pp. 59.
10.^ Levy (1995), p. 161
11.^ Article X of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, Levy (1995), p. 161
12.^ Levy (1995), pp. 162–164
13.^ Mass. Const. pt. 1, art. XIV.
14.^ United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984): "This Court has ... consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official." (punctuation omitted).
15.^ For example, see Article 1, § 7 of the Tennessee Constitution.
16.^ Lasson (1937), p. 106
17.^ Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967) (speculating that there may be "items of evidential value whose very nature precludes them from being the object of a reasonable search and seizure")
18.^ Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004)
19.^ Tennessee v. Garner 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
20.^ "No less than an individual in a business office, in a friend's apartment, or in a taxicab, a person in a telephone booth may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment. One who occupies it, shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume that the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 352 (1967).
21.^ Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497–98, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1324 (1983).
Federal Court Rules In Favor of TSA
So a Federal Court rules in favor of more Federal Power, that's a surprise.
Federal Court Rules That TSA ‘Naked Scans’ Are Constitutional
Last weekend, a Tennessee woman was arrested at the Nashville airport for disorderly conduct after she refused TSA security measures for her children. The woman didn’t want her two children to have to go through a whole-body-imaging scanner. When a Transportation Security Administration officer told her the machines were safe, she said, “I still don’t want someone to see our bodies naked.”
She won’t be pleased with a ruling then out of the D.C. Circuit today. This morning, the federal court ruled that the “naked scans” of air travelers do not violate Americans’ constitutional rights. Privacy rights group EPIC had sued the Department of Homeland Security, alleging violations of innocent passengers’ Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches. The court says that argument doesn’t fly.
In the opinion [pdf] from the D.C. Circuit Court (the Volokh Conspiracy), Judge Douglas Ginsburg writes that the advance imaging technology is not unreasonable given the security concerns on airplanes, and that people have the option to opt out for a pleasurable patdown. The court notes that some “have complained that the resulting patdown was unnecessarily aggressive,” but the judges don’t seem overly concerned about that. Ginsburg writes:
On the other side of the balance, we must acknowledge the steps the TSA has already taken to protect passenger privacy, in particular distorting the image created using AIT and deleting it as soon as the passenger has been cleared. More telling, any passenger may opt-out of AIT screening in favor of a patdown, which allows him to decide which of the two options for detecting a concealed, nonmetallic weapon or explosive is least invasive.
Good news for body scanner manufacturers Rapiscan and L-3. Bad news for those who don’t like having to choose between digital nudity and frisking. Legal scholar Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy expresses mild surprise at how easily the court dismissed privacy concerns with the TSA screens, as he regards the court as a Fourth-Amendment-friendly one.
There was a small rebuke in the opinion for the TSA. The judges ruled that the TSA had violated an administrative law requiring public comment before issuing a new rule making the body scanners their primary tool for airport security. It would be too disruptive to have the TSA stop using the scanners, writes Judge Ginsburg, but they do expect that the TSA will now take comments. In this case, “better late than never” doesn’t really mean much.
http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/2011/07/15/federal-court-rules-that-tsa-naked-scans-are-constitutional/
Federal Court Rules That TSA ‘Naked Scans’ Are Constitutional
Last weekend, a Tennessee woman was arrested at the Nashville airport for disorderly conduct after she refused TSA security measures for her children. The woman didn’t want her two children to have to go through a whole-body-imaging scanner. When a Transportation Security Administration officer told her the machines were safe, she said, “I still don’t want someone to see our bodies naked.”
She won’t be pleased with a ruling then out of the D.C. Circuit today. This morning, the federal court ruled that the “naked scans” of air travelers do not violate Americans’ constitutional rights. Privacy rights group EPIC had sued the Department of Homeland Security, alleging violations of innocent passengers’ Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches. The court says that argument doesn’t fly.
In the opinion [pdf] from the D.C. Circuit Court (the Volokh Conspiracy), Judge Douglas Ginsburg writes that the advance imaging technology is not unreasonable given the security concerns on airplanes, and that people have the option to opt out for a pleasurable patdown. The court notes that some “have complained that the resulting patdown was unnecessarily aggressive,” but the judges don’t seem overly concerned about that. Ginsburg writes:
On the other side of the balance, we must acknowledge the steps the TSA has already taken to protect passenger privacy, in particular distorting the image created using AIT and deleting it as soon as the passenger has been cleared. More telling, any passenger may opt-out of AIT screening in favor of a patdown, which allows him to decide which of the two options for detecting a concealed, nonmetallic weapon or explosive is least invasive.
Good news for body scanner manufacturers Rapiscan and L-3. Bad news for those who don’t like having to choose between digital nudity and frisking. Legal scholar Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy expresses mild surprise at how easily the court dismissed privacy concerns with the TSA screens, as he regards the court as a Fourth-Amendment-friendly one.
There was a small rebuke in the opinion for the TSA. The judges ruled that the TSA had violated an administrative law requiring public comment before issuing a new rule making the body scanners their primary tool for airport security. It would be too disruptive to have the TSA stop using the scanners, writes Judge Ginsburg, but they do expect that the TSA will now take comments. In this case, “better late than never” doesn’t really mean much.
http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/2011/07/15/federal-court-rules-that-tsa-naked-scans-are-constitutional/
Woman Gropes TSA Agent's Breast at Security Checkpoint
Woman Gropes TSA Agent's Breast at Security Checkpoint
PHOENIX - We hear a lot of complaints about security screeners groping airline passengers.
But now, a Colorado woman is accused of putting her hands on a TSA agent at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix.
Court records show 61-year-old Yukari Mihamae grabbed the left breast of the female agent Thursday at the Terminal 4 checkpoint.
Police say she squeezed and twisted the agent's breast with both hands.
Officers say Mihamae admitted to the crime.
There's no word why she touched the agent.
Mihamae now faces a felony count of sexual abuse.
According to court records, she lives in Longmont, Colorado and is self-employed.
PHOENIX - We hear a lot of complaints about security screeners groping airline passengers.
But now, a Colorado woman is accused of putting her hands on a TSA agent at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix.
Court records show 61-year-old Yukari Mihamae grabbed the left breast of the female agent Thursday at the Terminal 4 checkpoint.
Police say she squeezed and twisted the agent's breast with both hands.
Officers say Mihamae admitted to the crime.
There's no word why she touched the agent.
Mihamae now faces a felony count of sexual abuse.
According to court records, she lives in Longmont, Colorado and is self-employed.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Police Shut Down Another Lemonade Stand
To serve and protect the people or to serve the state?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ODD_LEMONADE_STAND_SHUT_DOWN?SITE=NCWIN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ODD_LEMONADE_STAND_SHUT_DOWN?SITE=NCWIN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Friday, July 8, 2011
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Today, the Constitution is Relevant
By Dr. Larry P. Arnn
President
Hillsdale College
The 4th of July cover article of Time magazine claims that the Constitution is irrelevant.
Frightening.
As proof of its irrelevance, Time lists a dozen products of modern society inconceivable to the framers, including antibiotics, "sexting," and Medicare. The Constitution's only virtue, they say, is that it has many meanings and thus leaves us able to do whatever we want to do.
But not everything has changed since 1787. When it comes to ordering society under the rule of law, what is most important? Knowledge of "collateralized debt obligations" or knowledge of human nature?
Here are a few things the framers did know something about: Religious Freedom. Education. Tyranny. Friendship. Happiness. Sovereignty of the People. Virtue.
The Constitution does not allow us to do whatever we want to do. In the words of James Madison, the Constitution was framed out of the belief that "it is the reason, alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government. The passions ought to be controlled and regulated by the government."
The genius of the Constitution lies in its having a definite meaning on the fundamentals--that every individual has rights, that the people are sovereign, and that the governmental powers must remain separated--while leaving wide latitude to local government, or the people themselves, on issues not specifically addressed in the Constitution.
The framers were no gods; the amendment procedure was included for good reason. Yet for more than two centuries the United States has flourished in a project long thought impossible: self-government.
Liberty. Equality. Self-government.
If the Fourth of July is a celebration of these things, it is a celebration of the Constitution as much as the Declaration of Independence. No constitution in history has proven itself more deeply committed to these principles, and no nation has been more richly blessed in return.
The basic truth within the Constitution is that the government cannot have limitless power, for the simple reason that government is made up of people. A Constitution with no definite meaning gives free reign to the passions of those people within and without the government. A Constitution with a meaning honored and obeyed becomes a guardian of all people, for it sustains a government that is strong within its defined powers but limited in order to protect the liberty and equality of citizens.
Instead of scoffing at those Americans concerned that their federal government has overrun its limits in the name of energy and modernity, perhaps Time should consider what an American President said about the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution on the 150th anniversary of July 4th, 1776:
"It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."
- Calvin Coolidge
July 5, 1926
Read the entirety of President Coolidge's "Speech on the Occasion of the One Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence here:
http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2286/default.asp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Larry P. Arnn is the twelfth President of Hillsdale College. Before coming to Hillsdale, Dr. Arnn was research assistant to Sir Martin Gilbert, the official biographer of Winston Churchill, and was the President of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy. Each year, he teaches courses on the United States Constitution and the statesmanship of Churchill.
Visit our website, www.hillsdale.edu, for more information about Hillsdale College.
By Dr. Larry P. Arnn
President
Hillsdale College
The 4th of July cover article of Time magazine claims that the Constitution is irrelevant.
Frightening.
As proof of its irrelevance, Time lists a dozen products of modern society inconceivable to the framers, including antibiotics, "sexting," and Medicare. The Constitution's only virtue, they say, is that it has many meanings and thus leaves us able to do whatever we want to do.
But not everything has changed since 1787. When it comes to ordering society under the rule of law, what is most important? Knowledge of "collateralized debt obligations" or knowledge of human nature?
Here are a few things the framers did know something about: Religious Freedom. Education. Tyranny. Friendship. Happiness. Sovereignty of the People. Virtue.
The Constitution does not allow us to do whatever we want to do. In the words of James Madison, the Constitution was framed out of the belief that "it is the reason, alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government. The passions ought to be controlled and regulated by the government."
The genius of the Constitution lies in its having a definite meaning on the fundamentals--that every individual has rights, that the people are sovereign, and that the governmental powers must remain separated--while leaving wide latitude to local government, or the people themselves, on issues not specifically addressed in the Constitution.
The framers were no gods; the amendment procedure was included for good reason. Yet for more than two centuries the United States has flourished in a project long thought impossible: self-government.
Liberty. Equality. Self-government.
If the Fourth of July is a celebration of these things, it is a celebration of the Constitution as much as the Declaration of Independence. No constitution in history has proven itself more deeply committed to these principles, and no nation has been more richly blessed in return.
The basic truth within the Constitution is that the government cannot have limitless power, for the simple reason that government is made up of people. A Constitution with no definite meaning gives free reign to the passions of those people within and without the government. A Constitution with a meaning honored and obeyed becomes a guardian of all people, for it sustains a government that is strong within its defined powers but limited in order to protect the liberty and equality of citizens.
Instead of scoffing at those Americans concerned that their federal government has overrun its limits in the name of energy and modernity, perhaps Time should consider what an American President said about the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution on the 150th anniversary of July 4th, 1776:
"It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."
- Calvin Coolidge
July 5, 1926
Read the entirety of President Coolidge's "Speech on the Occasion of the One Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence here:
http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2286/default.asp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Larry P. Arnn is the twelfth President of Hillsdale College. Before coming to Hillsdale, Dr. Arnn was research assistant to Sir Martin Gilbert, the official biographer of Winston Churchill, and was the President of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy. Each year, he teaches courses on the United States Constitution and the statesmanship of Churchill.
Visit our website, www.hillsdale.edu, for more information about Hillsdale College.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Humanity At It's Best
Man Travels From Japan to help out tornado victims in Joplin
By: Bobby Bierley
JOPLIN, Missouri - Thousands of volunteers, many mobilized by AmeriCorps, are starting to make a dent into the cleanup of debris left behind following the EF-5 tornado that ripped through Joplin on may 22.
"Through the many hands of all the wonderful volunteers from all around, we take a very extremely heavy load and turn it light," said Jared Wicks, of AmeriCorps. "We have a big problem, but we have a lot of big hearts that are coming and showing up everyday."
One of those volunteers with a big heart is Toshiya "Toshi" Muto, from Japan.
Seeing what the people from the U.S. did with their wallets--and their actions--following the earthquake and subsequent tsunami that hit his home country in March, Toshi decided that he would do his part to pay the U.S. back in the wake of the devastating tornado.
"I heard it was a horrible, horrible situation and thought maybe I should do what I can to help in Joplin," Toshi said, using a translator. "Both are very terrible disasters. There's much human tragedy. They both need lots of debris removal and have seriously impacted families' lives."
During his time here, he's worked in the hot sun every day alongside volunteers from New York, Florida, and several other states.
But no one as far away as Toshi's home.
"He's very hard-working, very inspirational," said Wicks of Toshi. "I think it's just the utter definition of compassion for your fellow man."
Toshi says he's also guided by a sense of respect and gratitude toward America.
"It's not just the sadness," Toshi explained. "You see the good side of people. I felt that in Japan and I feel that here. I really respect the people who are here volunteering and helping out."
Toshi rides his bike ten miles round-trip everyday from his hotel to the disaster zone to do what he can to help victims of the tornado and do his part to make this world we share a better place.
"Of course it has an impact on my life, but though my strength may be soft, slightly weak, if it has some impact, if someone needs me to exert myself, i'd like to do my best to help."
Video:
http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/state/missouri/man-travels-from-japan-to-help-out-tornado-victims-in-joplin
By: Bobby Bierley
JOPLIN, Missouri - Thousands of volunteers, many mobilized by AmeriCorps, are starting to make a dent into the cleanup of debris left behind following the EF-5 tornado that ripped through Joplin on may 22.
"Through the many hands of all the wonderful volunteers from all around, we take a very extremely heavy load and turn it light," said Jared Wicks, of AmeriCorps. "We have a big problem, but we have a lot of big hearts that are coming and showing up everyday."
One of those volunteers with a big heart is Toshiya "Toshi" Muto, from Japan.
Seeing what the people from the U.S. did with their wallets--and their actions--following the earthquake and subsequent tsunami that hit his home country in March, Toshi decided that he would do his part to pay the U.S. back in the wake of the devastating tornado.
"I heard it was a horrible, horrible situation and thought maybe I should do what I can to help in Joplin," Toshi said, using a translator. "Both are very terrible disasters. There's much human tragedy. They both need lots of debris removal and have seriously impacted families' lives."
During his time here, he's worked in the hot sun every day alongside volunteers from New York, Florida, and several other states.
But no one as far away as Toshi's home.
"He's very hard-working, very inspirational," said Wicks of Toshi. "I think it's just the utter definition of compassion for your fellow man."
Toshi says he's also guided by a sense of respect and gratitude toward America.
"It's not just the sadness," Toshi explained. "You see the good side of people. I felt that in Japan and I feel that here. I really respect the people who are here volunteering and helping out."
Toshi rides his bike ten miles round-trip everyday from his hotel to the disaster zone to do what he can to help victims of the tornado and do his part to make this world we share a better place.
"Of course it has an impact on my life, but though my strength may be soft, slightly weak, if it has some impact, if someone needs me to exert myself, i'd like to do my best to help."
Video:
http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/state/missouri/man-travels-from-japan-to-help-out-tornado-victims-in-joplin
Friday, July 1, 2011
Remembering The Fourth Of July
"Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor."
Our Founding Fathers paid the price for the United States of America.
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist
Copyright 2000 Boston Globe
On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress voted 12-0 -- New York abstained -- in favor of Richard Henry Lee's resolution "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States."
On July 4, the Declaration of Independence drafted by Thomas Jefferson -- heavily edited by Congress -- was adopted without dissent. On July 8, the Declaration was publicly proclaimed in Philadelphia. On July 15, Congress learned that the New York Legislature had decided to endorse the Declaration. On Aug. 2, a parchment copy was presented to the Congress for signature. Most of the 56 men who put their name to the document did so that day.
And then?
We tend to forget that to sign the Declaration of Independence was to commit an act of treason -- and the punishment for treason was death. To publicly accuse King George III of "repeated injuries and usurpations," to announce that Americans were therefore "Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown," was a move fraught with danger -- so much so that the names of the signers were kept secret for six months
They were risking everything, and they knew it. That is the meaning of the Declaration's soaring last sentence:
"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."
Most of the signers survived the war; several went on to illustrious careers.
Two of them became presidents of the United States, and among the others were future vice presidents, senators, and governors. But not all were so fortunate.
Nine of the 56 died during the Revolution, and never tasted American independence.
Five were captured by the British.
Eighteen had their homes -- great estates, some of them - looted or burnt by the enemy.
Some lost everything they owned.
Two were wounded in battle.
Two others were the fathers of sons killed or captured during the war.
"Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." It was not just a rhetorical flourish.
We all recognize John Hancock's signature, but who ever notices the names beneath his? William Ellery, Thomas Nelson, Richard Stockton, Button Gwinnett, Francis Lewis -- to most of us, these are names without meaning.
But each represents a real human being, some of whom paid dearly "for the support of this Declaration" and American independence.
Lewis Morris of New York, for example, must have known when he signed the Declaration that he was signing away his fortune. Within weeks, the British ravaged his estate, destroyed his vast woodlands, butchered his cattle, and sent his family fleeing for their lives.
Another New Yorker, William Floyd, was also forced to flee when the British plundered his property. He and his family lived as refugees for seven years without income. The strain told on his wife; she died two years before the war ended.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, an aristocratic planter who had invested heavily in shipping, saw most of his vessels captured by the British navy. His estates were largely ruined, and by the end of his life he was a pauper.
The home of William Ellery, a Rhode Island delegate, was burned to the ground during the occupation of Newport.
Thomas Heyward Jr., Edward Rutledge, and Arthur Middleton, three members of the South Carolina delegation, all suffered the destruction or vandalizing of their homes at the hands of enemy troops. All three were captured when Charleston fell in 1780, and spent a year in a British prison.
"Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
Thomas Nelson Jr. of Virginia raised $2 million for the patriots' cause on his own personal credit. The government never reimbursed him, and repaying the loans wiped out his entire estate. During the battle of Yorktown, his house, which had been seized by the British, was occupied by General Cornwallis. Nelson quietly urged the gunners to fire on his own home. They did so, destroying it. He was never again a man of wealth. He died bankrupt and was buried in an unmarked grave.
Richard Stockton, a judge on New Jersey's supreme court, was betrayed by loyalist neighbors. He was dragged from his bed and thrown in prison, where he was brutally beaten and starved. His lands were devastated, his horses stolen, his library burnt. He was freed in 1777, but his health had so deteriorated that he died within five years. His family lived on charity for the rest of their lives.
In the British assault on New York, Francis Lewis's home and property were pillaged. His wife was captured and imprisoned; so harshly was she treated that she died soon after her release. Lewis spent the remainder of his days in relative poverty.
And then there was John Hart. The speaker of the New Jersey Assembly, he was forced to flee in the winter of 1776, at the age of 65, from his dying wife's bedside. While he hid in forests and caves, his home was demolished, his fields and mill laid waste, and his 13 children put to flight. When it was finally safe for him to return, he found his wife dead, his children missing, and his property decimated. He never saw any of his family again and died, a shattered man, in 1779.
The men who signed that piece of parchment in 1776 were the elite of their colonies. They were men of means and social standing, but for the sake of liberty, they pledged it all -- their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
Our Founding Fathers paid the price for the United States of America.
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist
Copyright 2000 Boston Globe
On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress voted 12-0 -- New York abstained -- in favor of Richard Henry Lee's resolution "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States."
On July 4, the Declaration of Independence drafted by Thomas Jefferson -- heavily edited by Congress -- was adopted without dissent. On July 8, the Declaration was publicly proclaimed in Philadelphia. On July 15, Congress learned that the New York Legislature had decided to endorse the Declaration. On Aug. 2, a parchment copy was presented to the Congress for signature. Most of the 56 men who put their name to the document did so that day.
And then?
We tend to forget that to sign the Declaration of Independence was to commit an act of treason -- and the punishment for treason was death. To publicly accuse King George III of "repeated injuries and usurpations," to announce that Americans were therefore "Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown," was a move fraught with danger -- so much so that the names of the signers were kept secret for six months
They were risking everything, and they knew it. That is the meaning of the Declaration's soaring last sentence:
"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."
Most of the signers survived the war; several went on to illustrious careers.
Two of them became presidents of the United States, and among the others were future vice presidents, senators, and governors. But not all were so fortunate.
Nine of the 56 died during the Revolution, and never tasted American independence.
Five were captured by the British.
Eighteen had their homes -- great estates, some of them - looted or burnt by the enemy.
Some lost everything they owned.
Two were wounded in battle.
Two others were the fathers of sons killed or captured during the war.
"Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." It was not just a rhetorical flourish.
We all recognize John Hancock's signature, but who ever notices the names beneath his? William Ellery, Thomas Nelson, Richard Stockton, Button Gwinnett, Francis Lewis -- to most of us, these are names without meaning.
But each represents a real human being, some of whom paid dearly "for the support of this Declaration" and American independence.
Lewis Morris of New York, for example, must have known when he signed the Declaration that he was signing away his fortune. Within weeks, the British ravaged his estate, destroyed his vast woodlands, butchered his cattle, and sent his family fleeing for their lives.
Another New Yorker, William Floyd, was also forced to flee when the British plundered his property. He and his family lived as refugees for seven years without income. The strain told on his wife; she died two years before the war ended.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, an aristocratic planter who had invested heavily in shipping, saw most of his vessels captured by the British navy. His estates were largely ruined, and by the end of his life he was a pauper.
The home of William Ellery, a Rhode Island delegate, was burned to the ground during the occupation of Newport.
Thomas Heyward Jr., Edward Rutledge, and Arthur Middleton, three members of the South Carolina delegation, all suffered the destruction or vandalizing of their homes at the hands of enemy troops. All three were captured when Charleston fell in 1780, and spent a year in a British prison.
"Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
Thomas Nelson Jr. of Virginia raised $2 million for the patriots' cause on his own personal credit. The government never reimbursed him, and repaying the loans wiped out his entire estate. During the battle of Yorktown, his house, which had been seized by the British, was occupied by General Cornwallis. Nelson quietly urged the gunners to fire on his own home. They did so, destroying it. He was never again a man of wealth. He died bankrupt and was buried in an unmarked grave.
Richard Stockton, a judge on New Jersey's supreme court, was betrayed by loyalist neighbors. He was dragged from his bed and thrown in prison, where he was brutally beaten and starved. His lands were devastated, his horses stolen, his library burnt. He was freed in 1777, but his health had so deteriorated that he died within five years. His family lived on charity for the rest of their lives.
In the British assault on New York, Francis Lewis's home and property were pillaged. His wife was captured and imprisoned; so harshly was she treated that she died soon after her release. Lewis spent the remainder of his days in relative poverty.
And then there was John Hart. The speaker of the New Jersey Assembly, he was forced to flee in the winter of 1776, at the age of 65, from his dying wife's bedside. While he hid in forests and caves, his home was demolished, his fields and mill laid waste, and his 13 children put to flight. When it was finally safe for him to return, he found his wife dead, his children missing, and his property decimated. He never saw any of his family again and died, a shattered man, in 1779.
The men who signed that piece of parchment in 1776 were the elite of their colonies. They were men of means and social standing, but for the sake of liberty, they pledged it all -- their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
We are in their debt to this day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)