Feeds: Email, RSS & Twitter

Get Our Videos By Email


8,300 Unique Visitors In The Past Day


Powered by Squarespace


Search The Archive Of 15,000 Videos




Hank Paulson Is A Criminal - Pass It On

"The Federal Reserve Is A Ponzi Scheme"

Get Our Videos By Email


Bernanke's Replacement: Happy Hour In Santa Cruz

Must See: National Debt Road Trip

"Of Course We're Not Going To  Payback the Chinese."

Dave Chappelle On White Collar Crime

Carlin: Wall Street Owns Washington

SLIDESHOW - Genius Signs From Irish IMF Protest

SLIDESHOW - Airport Security Cartoons - TSA

Most Recent Comments
Cartoons & Photos
« PIMCO's Bill Gross: "The U.S. National Debt Is $100 Trillion, We Are In Worse Financial Shape Than Greece" (Video) | Main | ANONYMOUS Seeks Legal Counsel For RICO Class Action Lawsuit Against The Federal Reserve - #OpESR »

HISTORY LESSON: What became of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Jefferson was fortunate.  Many lost their lives as a consequence.


Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 signators of the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two Lost their sons in the revolutionary army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the revolutionary war.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners, men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty wouldbe death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress Without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers or both, looted the properties of Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. The owner quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying.Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his grist mill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a broken heart. Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.

Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution.These were not wild eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: "For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." 

Source:  American Library



Meanwhile this new study has just been released:





PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (43)

There are many more stories like that Steve, it is not all glory as a few would like us to believe...
Jul 29, 2010 at 11:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterS. Gompers
And politicians now treat it as nothing more than a wall decoration .SAD,
Jul 29, 2010 at 12:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterJTS
"HISTORY LESSON: What became of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?"

They're all as DEAD as the ideals they promulgated.
Jul 29, 2010 at 4:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterRecoverylessRecovery
Great post DB.

Not one in a thousand Americans knows or even suspects these facts. It would make them uncomfortable to think that it might be time to "pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" for a similar cause today, and I'm not talking about gay marriage or school busing.

Whatever you think of Julian Assange and/or Bradley Manning, only acts of courage such as theirs can bring significant change. The rest is only prologue.
Jul 29, 2010 at 7:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames Street
Perhaps, this blog post is the most important one.

Contrast the fate of these men to the fruits of what Americans have enjoyed since and to the disgusting greedy way of today's Americans who agitate for free-to-them welfare medicine (Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare), free-to-them retirement money (Social Security), free-to-them welfare (TANF, SNAP, Section 8, farm subsidy, extended unemployment benefits) and it should sicken any sane, right thinking man or woman.
Jul 30, 2010 at 10:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterSmack MacDougal
it is a very sharp contrast, smack...we have fallen far in 235 years...
Jul 30, 2010 at 12:17 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail

If you worked for a living, you'd understand that 15% of your pay has gone into the SS system (half is paid by the employer), and that the government accumulated a $2.4 Trillion dollar surplus on it. Hardly free.

Now that that money has been squandered, and the tiniest bit needs to be repaid, idiots like you believe that it's welfare because that's what the theives who stole the money told you to believe.
Jul 30, 2010 at 12:34 PM | Unregistered Commentermark mchugh
The facts tend to get even better, did you know the first 15 months of the Revolution were really a civil war?

How were the Americans able to defeat the most powerful nation in the world? Historians give several reasons:
The Americans were fighting at home, while the British had to bring troops and supplies from across a wide ocean. British officers made mistakes, especially General William Howe. His slowness to take action at the start of the war made it possible for the Americans to survive during two difficult winters.

Another reason was the help the Americans received from the French. Also, the British public had stopped supporting the long and costly war. Finally, historians say America might not have won without the leadership of George Washington. He was honest, brave.

Jul 30, 2010 at 6:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterS. Gompers
"Now that that money has been squandered, and the tiniest bit needs to be repaid, idiots like you believe that it's welfare because that's what the theives who stole the money told you to believe."

Right On Mark!

I think the Johnson Administration was the first in a long line of thieving politicians to grab the SS Trust-fund surplus and issue worthless non negotiable Treasury Bonds that are obviously never going reimburse the Trust Fund. The crooked b-----ds raped a program that could have kept going for a long time.

The thought millions of dollars that they can't spend on war or their pet pork projects drives corrupt politicians absolutely insane. They will find a way to steal it and they did.
Jul 30, 2010 at 8:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterSagebrush
It would be self sustaining by now if every administration had not been robbing it.
Jul 30, 2010 at 9:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterS. Gompers
Very few people realize that the American Revolution was the first American Civil War. Thanks for pointing that out Gompers.

Sometimes I think sea changes come into people's lives, and the lives of entire civilizations, when they find themselves remembering a different set of facts and denigrating or even forgetting other facts.

I think if we went back to the America of 1775 we would recognize everyone as Americans and even the accents would be similar to ours, but many things we think important (and I'm not talking about technology) they would think trivial and vice versa.
Jul 30, 2010 at 9:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames Street
I think the john adams clip i posted today demonstrates some of the ideological split during the first 18 months...as for robbing the annual surpluses in the ss fund...anyone remeber which president or congress got that started...?...
Jul 30, 2010 at 11:21 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
Sorry to go off-topic on a founding fathers post, but I couldn't let the SS attack stand.

We are literally propping up the Wall Street retirement model right now with everything and the kitchen sink. The SS model is better in my opinion, but as we all know, the money was stolen.

Can you guys feel the propaganda pressure to dismiss SS as "welfare" and buy lottery tickets from Wall Street?
Jul 30, 2010 at 11:30 PM | Unregistered Commentermark mchugh
"as for robbing the annual surpluses in the ss fund...anyone remeber which president or congress got that started...?... "

I don't DB, you gonna leave us hanging?

Very good post, Gomp.
Jul 30, 2010 at 11:38 PM | Unregistered Commentermark mchugh
mark...i noticed in sage's post that it was the johnson administration...and he's correct...it's in this short article...



And that link was outstanding gompers...i will post it again below...and for the record, i got an email from someone today so pissed off that i publiished this story that he vowed not to read the site again...apparently much of what is published above about the 56 signers is FALSE...turns out the guy who emailed me has a phd in american history and he's been dealing with these types of falsehoods for awhile...he's a nice guy and so i asked him to write a rebuttal piece of sorts that i will publish...

Jul 31, 2010 at 12:05 AM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
Agreed mark,

Just think about it. If G.W. had succeeded with his SS reform, the collapse would have chewed up the whole fund. the Fed. Govt. could tell everybody old farts and the young folks alike sorry it's all gone you have to go to work and build new accounts.

I wonder, would that have allowed the Federal Reserve to print up a few trillion more in funny money for the big banks?
Jul 31, 2010 at 12:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterSagebrush
Hey guys...from this link, it seems there never was an official trust fund to begin with...i've excerpted it below...they called it a trust fund but who knows.,..i've had a few drinks...maybe someone more sober can check this out...



In the Social Security Act of 1935 the income from the payroll tax was to be credited to a Social Security "account." Benefits were to be paid against this account, but there was no formal trust fund as such. Taxes began to be collected in January 1937, and monthly benefits were to be paid starting in January 1942 (later pushed forward to January 1940). So the payroll taxes were just credits in the Social Security account on the Treasury's ledger under the initial law.

The investment rules governing payroll tax income were also established in the 1935, and are essentially the same ones in use today. Specifically, the 1935 Act stated: "It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such investment may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States." (See Title II, Section 201of the 1935 law)

In the 1939 Amendments, a formal trust fund was established and a requirement was put in place for annual reports on the actuarial status of the fund. Specifically, the law provided: "There is hereby created on the books of the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the 'Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund'. . . . The Trust Fund shall consist of the securities held by the Secretary of the Treasury for the Old Age Reserve Account on the books of the Treasury on January 1, 1940, which securities and amount the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to transfer to the Trust Fund, and, in addition, such amounts as may be appropriated to the Trust Fund as herein under provided." (Title II, Section 201a)

In other words, a formal trust fund was established for the Social Security program and the credits already on the Treasury's books for the Social Security program were to be transferred to this Fund, along with all future revenues raised for the program.

The investment procedures adopted in 1939 were modified only slightly from those in the original Act of 1935. Basically, changes were made in the interest rate rules governing the investments, and the Managing Trustee was designated as the investing official (who happens to be the Secretary of the Treasury in any case), but in most other respects the language was similar to that in the original law. (See the text of the 1939 Amendments for more details.)

Both the 1935 and the 1939 laws specified three types of purchases that might be made: 1) securities on original issue at par; 2) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market price; and 3) via the issuance of "special obligation bonds" that could be issued only to the Social Security Trust Fund. These special obligation bonds were not to be marketable, although the other two forms of securities could be. The idea of special obligation bonds was not new nor unique to the Social Security program. Similar bonds were used during World War I and World War II, and it was in fact the Second Liberty Bond Act that was the law amended in 1939 to allow the Social Security program to make use of this type of government bond.

Consequently, over time the Social Security Trust Funds have included a mix of marketable and non-marketable Treasury securities. Over the years, the proportion has shifted heavily in favor of special obligation bonds as the main asset held by the Social Security Trust Funds. Prior to 1960, the Treasury's policy was to invest primarily in marketable securities, although this policy was not always followed. Since 1960, the policy has been to invest principally in special obligation bonds, unless the Managing Trustee of the funds (i.e., the Secretary of the Treasury) determines that investment in marketable securities would be "in the public interest." In fact, since 1980 no marketable securities have been added to the Trust Funds. (For a more detailed explanation see the Office of the Actuary's Actuarial Note #142.)

Since the assets in the Social Security trust funds consists of Treasury securities, this means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires. In this indirect sense, one could say that the Social Security trust funds are being spent for non-Social Security purposes. However, all this really means is that the trust funds hold their assets in the form of Treasury securities.

These financing procedures have not changed in any fundamental way since payroll taxes were first collected in 1937. What has changed, however, is the accounting procedures used in federal budgeting when it comes to the Social Security Trust Funds.
Jul 31, 2010 at 12:10 AM | Registered CommenterDailyBail

here's snopes on the 56 signers...
Jul 31, 2010 at 12:20 AM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
I don't know about the truth or falsehood of History Lesson but the link to Richard J. Maybury's article doesn't prove it to be false. (It might be, obviously but Maybury's article doesn't say anything about the people mentioned in the History Lesson article.)

Also, Maybury's characterization of English feudalism as socialism is ridiculous. From the point of view English feudalism, all business activity was considered near criminal because the Crown tried to control all of it. But totalitarian feudalism is the antipodes of socialism (everyone is supposed to be as equal to everyone else as possible under socialism) and Adam Smith free enterprise is not the definition of criminal behavior unless you are a representative of the British Crown of 1775.

It would be interesting if an expert on the American Revolution would comment on History Lesson, however.
Jul 31, 2010 at 12:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames Street
Here is another interesting S.S. link.

Jul 31, 2010 at 7:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterS. Gompers
Sorry. I didn't understand that the link just above my post was the correct link.

It shows that History Lesson is more emotional than factual and more in the bodice-breaking historical genre than in the sober just-show-me-the-facts genre.

It doesn't change the fact that the revolutionary war was a civil war, the Americans were viewed as treasonous by the Crown and, as I remember, the Crown placed a price on the head of all the prominent revolutionaries and, if the war had been lost, all would have been hunted down and hanged as traitors.

Individual freedom and its necessary accompaniment, protection from coercive, unrepresentative and arbitrary powers, has a heavy price and most of the sheeple think the price is too high.
Jul 31, 2010 at 12:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames Street
"...the Americans were viewed as treasonous by the Crown and, as I remember, the Crown placed a price on the head of all the prominent revolutionaries and, if the war had been lost, all would have been hunted down and hanged as traitors."

MORE likely; hanged, drawn and quartered. A punishment practiced until approx. 1814 and that MOST CERTAINLY have been applied to captyred American 'rebel' leaders..

This deliciously quaint English custom consisted in disembowelment and emasculation, followed by the severed genitalia and entrails being burned in front of the still-living victim on a nearby pyre, before the final fatal beheading, after which the resulting five body parts were put on public display in different places in order to deter future traitors who didn't see the actual execution.

Would you like another crumpett before the next beheading, milord? Indeed!
Aug 2, 2010 at 3:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterRecoverylessRecovery
PS: Isn't that UTTERLY amazing? A nation that prided itself so much on representing the very PINNACLE of civilization ..yet still practicing these horrific acts of brutal torture & mayhem.

Aug 2, 2010 at 4:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterRecoverylessRecovery
that is a gruesome description certainly...
Aug 2, 2010 at 11:47 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
"Since the assets in the Social Security trust funds consists of Treasury securities, this means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires. In this indirect sense, one could say that the Social Security trust funds are being spent for non-Social Security purposes. However, all this really means is that the trust funds hold their assets in the form of Treasury securities."

If there exist Treasury Securities purchased with 2.4 trillion dollars or more of S.S. surplus funds, Why do Congress and the Administrations keep claiming the S.S. system is broke and needs to be reformed? 2.4 Trillion and the interest it earns should go a long way to keep the system going.
Aug 5, 2010 at 4:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterSagebrush
I haven't read geithner's ss report yet...i might have an answer for you once i'm done...
Aug 6, 2010 at 5:44 AM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
The 56 did not have a good reason to fight like our soldiers today. WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION .Have you seen 'em?

If we have problems financing SS I'm sure it won't bother (80 million?) boomers .

I'm standing in a tunnel.Think I'll run to the other end and see what's the source of that light.
Jul 2, 2011 at 6:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterTR
I would bet you a wooden nickel and a bag of chips that most people couldn't name ANY of the signers of the D.O.I.
I would further bet that a great many of them would not even have the foggiest clue what the Declaration of Independence even is..let alone the Constitution.

There is a bright side to being clueless though..."If you don't know your rights,you won't mind when they get taken away"
and , it seems even knowing your inalienable rights is enough to get you arrested in some places..and who needs that right?

"A person who quotes the constitution or claims to know his rights" is a profile description that DHS uses to spot potential domestic terrorists.Yep the founding fathers would be pleased that their sacrifices still mean so much to the American people.
The founding fathers are most certainly rolling in their graves so fast we could generate power.
Jul 2, 2011 at 6:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterMy 2 cents.
LIBERTARIANS MAYBE CONSIDER GROWING UP THIS YEAR? at least unplug your heads from your asses.
Jul 2, 2011 at 8:01 PM | Unregistered Commenterhatzyou
A treasure trove of gold and silver jewelry, coins and precious stones said to be worth billions of dollars has been found in a Hindu temple in southern India, officials said on Saturday. The valuables have an estimated preliminary worth of over 500 billion rupees ($11.2 billion), said Kerala Chief Secretary K. Jayakumar, catapulting the temple into the league of India's richest temples.
The thousands of necklaces, coins and precious stones have been kept in at least five underground vaults at the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple which is renowned for its intricate sculptures. "We are yet to open one more secret chamber which has not been opened for nearly 140 years," Jayakumar told AFP.

Jul 2, 2011 at 8:47 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail


This may stir some up. I'm voting for me. I can screw it up as well as anyone.
Jul 2, 2011 at 9:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterTR
As our former and present president say "it's just a god*&# piece of paper"

the republic is dead, freedom is a story told to us by our fathers, and in story books.

I now need permission from the government to paint my house another color, flush my toilet, drive my car, earn money at my profession, travel, get married, get divorced, by a fire arm.. The freedom we enjoy now is only those "allowed" by your masters.

people all over the world have far more freedom than the brainwashed, dumbed down Americans.
Jul 3, 2011 at 9:53 AM | Unregistered Commentermike
The first and most famous signer of the Declaration managed to live to a ripe old age-- John Hancock (as in "put your John Hancock right there"). Rich, flamboyant, and entirely self-obsessed, he was the antithesis of the somber, stern-faced fellows we see in paintings of those times. The richest man in Boston, Hancock dressed like Liberace, threw huge parties open to everyone and was beloved by pretty much all (expect the British) . When he signed the Declaration of Independence, he wrote his name especially large "so that King George could read it without his spectacles". The Founders catered to Hancock's ego because they needed his wealth and ships for the war. And it worked. Goes to show, it takes all sorts to make a revolution.

Remember this when recruiting others to the cause of liberty.
Jul 3, 2011 at 10:51 AM | Unregistered Commenterh5mind
The reason most people don't know the 'facts' presented in this article about the Declaration's signer sis because most of the statements are false or exaggerated. John Hart did not have to leave his dying wife; she died a month before the British came. He did not return a few weeks later and died of a broken heart; he served 2 more terms in the Continental Congress. 9 of the signers DID die during the war,but none of them died from wounds. This article has been copied and pasted for years, and very few people bother to check it for accuracy.
Jul 3, 2011 at 11:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterDoug Hildemann
Mark McHugh,

You're right and Smack McHugh is a smacked a**. The morons in washington have collected social security for over 75 years and now where is it?? They have squandered it with the rest of our national treasure. We need to take control of our country back from the cretins who are screwing us!
Jul 3, 2011 at 12:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterDToM
Ooops, it's Smack MacDougal that's a smacked a**, sorry to all the McHugh's of the world.
Jul 3, 2011 at 12:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterDToM
The british lost, because they bought Hessians to fight for them.
Jul 3, 2011 at 1:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterLuis Ahumada
Why did Americans win the Revolution?

I had the fortunate experience of being in the 42d Street reading room, complete with guard, reading rare manuscripts.
I stumbled across a new take on why the Americans won the Revolution. It goes like this.

The Americans were sailing with the vengeance of Drake's blood and kicking arse and taking names in the Irish Sea. They would sail up rivers and sack the mansions of the royalty. As a result, the insurance premium of moving a ship of food from Ireland to England rose to over half the value of the cargo on board. The insurance premiums were so high, food was having a tough time reaching England. It was the insurance brokers that went to the King and complained about the problem. If the American piracy continued, they argued, England would lose India and America. They advised the king he could save one colony but not both. The good King chose to keep India, and America was set free.
Jul 3, 2011 at 3:40 PM | Unregistered Commenterbeijingyank
Barack Obama's Top Ten attacks on America and capitalism:


President Obama occasionally cozies up to the corporate world, especially during fund-raising time, and delivers a modicum of support for business. But have no doubt about it, this is a man who honors the power of government over the marketplace. Here are the Top 10 Obama Attacks on Capitalism:

1. Spread wealth around: This famous utterance—“I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody”—to Joe the Plumber during the 2008 presidential race, remains the saying that most succinctly sums up Obama’s worldview, that of a community organizer, which is that accumulated wealth is to be reviled and rectified through redistribution. Nothing could be more antagonistic to entrepreneurship, free markets or business investment than to have the government seize the rewards of sound economic decisions in order to try and engineer social equality.

2. Capital-gains “fairness”: During a 2008 presidential debate, Obama gave us another plank in his Socialist mindset by explaining his view on tax-policy fairness. When asked by moderator Charlie Gibson whether he would favor a cut in the capital gains rate if it led to higher revenues as it did during previous administrations, Obama said: “Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.” Seizing higher percentages of earnings from those who made wise investments is preferable to Obama even if it means less tax dollars for his precious government programs.

3. ObamaCare by any means: When battling for his signature health care legislation, Obama saw fit to carry out daily attacks on insurance companies. Even the liberal Washington Post called him out, with an article reporting: “The near-daily demonization of the insurance industry is an attempt by the White House to play to Americans' anxieties about the health-care system.” Typical of his attacks was a speech containing 22 castigations against the insurance industry, such as, “How much higher do premiums have to rise, before we do something about it?" We are still waiting, Mr. President.

4. Bondholders equal speculators: When negotiating the bailout of General Motors, Obama called the automaker’s bondholders “speculators” who were "refusing to sacrifice like everyone else." Apparently Obama’s definition of shared sacrifice didn’t apply to his campaign-backers at the United Auto Workers, which were handed partial ownership of the company saved from bankruptcy by taxpayer dollars.

5. Chamber of Commerce attack: Obama demonized the Chamber of Commerce during the midterm election campaign, accusing the business group, with no proof, of using foreign money to influence the elections. “Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations. So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections,” Obama said on the stump. “And they won’t tell you where the money for the ads comes from.” Going into campaign mode against corporate America with such silliness even had the New York Times complaining.

6. Class-warfare tactics: In January 2010, Obama stumped for the Massachusetts Senate campaign of Martha Coakley, asking the crowd to make a false choice: “When the vote comes on taxes, and there’s a choice between giving more tax breaks to the wealthiest few and corporations that ship American jobs overseas or giving them to the middle class and businesses that create jobs here, who’s going to be on your side?” We all know how well that campaign rhetoric worked, don’t we, Sen. Brown?

7. Student-loan penalty for private sector: Obama laid out a new student loan program in his 2010 State of the Union address where those who choose a career in public service (working for the government) get special treatment over those who enter the private sector. "Let's tell another 1 million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10% of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years, and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service.” Do we really need more incentives for government workers?

8. Stop making money: It just pains the President when someone is successful in the financial world. During his campaign to pass the Dodd-Frank financial reform monstrosity, Obama let his true feelings show: "We're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money.”

9. Boeing silence: That Obama doesn’t want to talk about the National Labor Relations Board’s Boeing action speaks volumes. The Obama-packed NLRB suit to deny Boeing’s attempt to open a new plant, creating jobs, in South Carolina because it is a right-to-work state strikes at the heart of our capitalist system. But when asked about the ruling, White House spokesman Jay Carney said: “We do not get involved in particular enforcement matters of independent agencies.”

10. Leave corporate America: Michelle Obama, during the 2008 presidential race, described her and her husband’s philosophy on the superiority of public service over the business world: “We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we're asking young people to do. Don't go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse.” Because, you know, community activists are so much more valuable than corporate leaders.
Jul 4, 2011 at 8:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterTaterSalad
One seriously unpopular post coming up!

Most of you would not recognise a revolution even it bit you in the ass.

Maybe, and that is a very small maybe you would see something and hear something between the ads on TV.

I have bad news for you all.

It was Bin Laden that tried to help you and free you from the tyranny of Wall Street.
I do not expect that idea to go down too well. But just give it some thought for a second.

This whole idea that you are all on about here. What do you expect. You sign a petition and the rich and powerful will back down?
"Ooooh you guys posted on a website. Drat! That will most certainly stop our plans for world domination!"

Wether you like it or not. Bin Laden was on your side.
Jul 6, 2011 at 3:38 AM | Unregistered Commentermorton
As has already been pointed out, this tale of the 56 signers is pretty much untrue. For a reasoned debunking see http://bit.ly/l57wdr - please can we put an end to the emotive myths and start discussing facts?

Like the fact that the Bill of Rights was a draft document that was never supposed to be "guarantees" but was left open for alteration and debate?
Jul 6, 2011 at 11:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterMr McLaughlin

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.