American Independence Festival in Exeter New Hampshire
My family and I have been meaning to visit the American Independence Museum in Exeter New Hampshire for about a year now, but up until today we had never visited it before. In Thursday’s edition of the Carriage Towne News— a free local weekly paper– I saw an advertisement for The American Independence Festival that was sponsored by the American Independence Museum as well as the Exeter Area Chamber of Commerce and other local organizations; that settled it– today would be the day that we finally visited the American Independence Museum.
We bought our tickets to the American Independence Museum, which granted us access to walk the ground where there were various displays set up showing the way various tasks were performed back in Revolutionary times. How interesting was this!?
We watched a man making chair legs using a lathe that included a flexible tree branch that was secured in the ground at one end, with a rope tied to the other. The rope was circled around the raw stock of wood and then secured to a foot pedal on the ground. As the foot pedal was pumped it would spin the raw stock in the opposite direction, when the foot pedal was released the tree branch would flex upward, pulling the pedal with it, while at the same time spinning the raw stock. The carpenter would hold a blade to the wood while pumping the foot pedal, thereby carving the raw stock into a finished product. The man informed us that to make one small chair leg would take about 45 minutes.
We saw women using similar machines to sew. And there was also a man “working the steel” with fire and a device that he would spin that introduced wind to a fire to heat the metal until it was pliable.
We passed by the American soldiers’ encampment where Revolutionary soldiers were preparing to do battle with the British.
Our ticket price gained us access to the Folsom Tavern, where George Washington once stayed after New Hampshire chartered a branch of the Society of the Cincinnati. To be in a house where the father of the country once stayed was beyond words. There were several artifacts there from revolutionary time that were very interesting. There was an original copy of a book on military discipline written by Baron von Steuben– the man who transformed General Washington’s ragtag army into a military fighting force during the winter spent at Valley Forge– among other artifacts.
George Washington then led a procession down Water Street that culminated with him speaking to the crowd, talking about his life and dispelling some popular myths about himself– from his wooden teeth to the cherry tree “incident.”
Suddenly a man on a horse came galloping down the street shouting, “I have the latest declaration from Philadelphia!” This declaration was handed over to John Taylor Gilman, who read it just as he did all those years ago in New Hampshire’s Revolutionary War capital.
As he was reading the Declaration of Independence a voice cried out from the crowd, “treason!” We all turned to see a man dressed in Revolutionary garb crying out to declare the Declaration as treason to the crown, and shouting, “God save the King!” But still John Taylor Gilman continued… even as the beating of drums was heard in the distance.
The drums continued to get louder as the Declaration was read until British soldiers came onto the scene to heckle Gilman. As British soldiers decried the “mob” of American soldiers and the sedition being incited by the “mob,” the Declaration was read in full.
Once the reading was completed, there were words between the British soldiers and the American “mob.” Eventually the British soldiers asked the man who had originally yelled “treason” if he felt safe. The man replied, “I fear for my life.” The British soldiers then said, “this man fears for his life and you call this liberty,” before offering anyone in the crowd protection by the King and his soldiers from the tyranny of the mob if they marched away with them to the British encampment.
What a great recreation of how things probably went back then as people were torn between remaining loyal to the crown or seeking independence from it.
After this recreation was over, we entered the American Independence Museum to take a look around. The museum had original printed copies of both the Declaration of Independence and the constitution. The museum actually had two versions of the original constitution– one copy was as it was originally written and the other was the final draft after the Committee of Style cleaned it up. The most interesting difference was in the opening paragraph. The original draft stated “we the people” and then listed the several states, before continuing “in order to form a more perfect union,” whereas the final version, as well all know, states “we the people of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union.”
There are only 26 known original printed copies of the Declaration of Independence that were dispersed among the colonies to be read to the people, and to actually have the opportunity to see an original copy of this magnificent document was awe-inspiring to say the least.
The museum also had quite a few artifacts that were interesting, including a copy of George Washington’s letter when he commissioned the Purple Heart, as well as an old Purple Heart, original medals of the New Hampshire chapter of the Society of the Cincinnati, and a letter by Kingston resident and first governor, founding father and second signer of the Declaration– Josiah Bartlett– complaining that there was too much commotion on Sundays, the Lord’s day.
This was a great event and we all had an unbelievable time. Seeing these historical writings in all their glory is impossible for me to describe. Anyone who lives in the New Hampshire area, is a history buff, and who has not been to the American Independence Museum owes it to themselves to check it out. I know that I intend to visit the museum again when it is not so busy so that I can get an even better look around.
While perusing the blogs the other night, I came across a post at A View from the Right about how 26% of Americans surveyed could not correctly give the answer to the question of which country America gained her independence from in the Revolutionary War.
This means that one out of ever four people polled could not correctly answer the question, and this got me thinking.
Since I began blogging I have become a student of history; I am not stating that I know everything that I should know yet, but I have been working hard to learn as much as possible about the founding of this country, and United States history in general. While doing this reading I have come to the conclusion that people need to learn how this country was founded in order to understand where it is headed; if you learn the past you can almost see the future.
By that I mean that if a person doesn’t understand the ideas that this country was founded upon, and the vision of what the founders thought this country should be, that person cannot fully understand how far we have drifted away from the ideas and the form of government that the founders bestowed upon us.
When I read about the philosophies of the founders and I see where America is today, I understand how far we have strayed from the constitution. More people need to understand what is going on, and the best way for them to do this is to read history; history is so interesting if only people would apply themselves– there is so much to learn– but people today are more interested in American Idol and other mindless television. These are nothing but diversions, and while a diversion once in awhile may be healthy, the fact that Americans have become so obsessed with this mindless drivel that more Americans vote for their favorite idol than vote for president shows us exactly how disengaged the American people have become to what is truly the important issues.
This survey tells us that our schools– and parents as well– have been negligent in teaching our children what America is supposed to represent. Somewhere along the line American history took a back seat to other issues that are of more value to the leftist agenda than is the founding of the country, and I have to believe that this is being done on purpose as America heads to a European socialistic form of government that is at odds with the basic tenets of this country’s founding.
As I said, if you don’t know where this country came from, you won’t understand where we are headed– or how this direction is at odds with the constitution of the United States. I have to believe that that is exactly what the far left radical socialists who teach our children want to accomplish.
They want to move our country in an anti-constitutional direction and the best was to accomplish this with little resistance– the best way to ensure that the hijacking of our constitution is met with little or no resistance– is to assure that as generations pass, the newest voters will have no idea what the origins of our government was, and the reservations the founders had about government were.
Through this ignorance, the left will be able to advance an agenda that would make the founders wince in pain, and through this ignorance they are slowly succeeding. It has taken them many years to reach this point, but they have finally reached the point where a large amount of Americans do not understand what it is that America is supposed to be, if these Americans cannot even name which country we fought during the Revolutionary War, there is no way we can expect them to understand anything about the founding of this country once the war ended.
The fact that one quarter of those polled could not even answer the most basic of American history questions, tells us that the left is succeeding in this goal, and while three out of four people could name the country we fought in the Revolutionary War represents a strong majority, the fact that one quarter of the American people do not know which country America fought in the Revolutionary War means the leftists are making progress at a faster rate than I would have thought possible. We can only expect this number to grow as the years go on.
This poll is even more disheartening when you realize that this was the most basic question on American history that could have been asked. If 26% of those polled didn’t even know America’s enemy during the Revolutionary War, what would the poll numbers be if you asked these same people questions about the type of government the founders set up, of if you asked them about basic consitutional premises? The results would be much worse as the questions delved into American history.
It is unconscionable that our children are not being taught American history, but I have to believe that this is exactly what the leftists want.
James Madison once said, “knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”
And that is why the left is working so hard to keep the younger generation ignorant. It is not being done by mistake.
Latest New Hampshire poll (07/15/10)
I believe that one of the pivotal elections this fall is going to be the senate race right here in New Hampshire. New Hampshire’s one remaining Republican senator, Judd Gregg, is retiring and it is of the utmost importance that Republicans– and even more importantly, conservatives– win this seat in November.
Paul Hodes– the second district Democrat congressman– is running unopposed for the senate seat, while there are several Republicans vying to hold on to the vacated seat. Paul Hodes must be defeated at all costs!
This senate race has become even more important for the future of New Hampshire as the state has trended Democrat in the last three election cycles; but it appears as if New Hampshire is ready to take a turn to the right. While if the Republicans win this seat it will technically be a “hold” the results could have wide ranging effects on the future of the state’s politics. If New Hampshire is going to swing back towards the right, it must start with this seat.
In previous polls the news was not great for Paul Hodes; he trailed the two Republican front-runners– Kelly Ayotte and Bill Binnie– by more than 10 percentage points. But according to the latest New Hampshire poll, the news has gotten even worse for Paul Hodes.
The numbers haven’t changed much in a matchup between Paul Hodes and Kelly Ayotte– she is leading 49 to 37 percent. Likewise the numbers haven’t changed much in a head to head matchup between Paul Hodes and Bill Binnie– Bill Binnie leads Paul Hodes by a 49 to 38 percent margin. But where the news gets worse for Paul Hodes is with the results of the other two front runners for the Republican nomination.
For the first time Paul Hodes trails all four Republican front-runners. Jim Bender now leads Paul Hodes by a 43 to 39 percent, and Ovide Lamontagne– the man who has the best conservative credentials of the bunch, the man that I believe the Tea Party will endorse, and who I am leaning towards voting for– is now leading Paul Hodes by a 43 to 40 percent margin.
All is not lost for Paul Hodes, he still has plenty of time to pull this out. He leads in fundraising and we can expect the usual Democrat special interest groups and the national Democrat party to pump money into his campaign. And there is also word that President Clinton is going to spend quite a bit of time here campaigning for Paul Hodes. In light of the recent election results in New Hampshire, the Democrats see this as a seat that they can expect to pick up and they are going to throw all available resources at New Hampshire in order to accomplish that result.
New Hampshire could be on the verge of correcting a major error, and if these numbers can hold up we may be ready to take back our state.
The poll numbers are even worse for Barack Obama in New Hampshire:
According to the poll, 46 percent strongly disapprove of the job he has been doing as President, 11 percent somewhat disapprove, 27 percent strongly approve and 15 percent somewhat approve
A total of 57% of those polled look at Barack Obama unfavorably while only 42% approve of the job he is doing. If history is too be repeated Republicans can expect to ride the anti-Obama feeling in this state in November in much the same manner that Democrats were able to ride Bush hatred to victory in the last three elections.
The one bright spot for Democrats in New Hampshire is the fact that New Hampshirites still have a favorable opinion of Governor John Lynch. 57% of those polled still approve at least a somewhat of the job that he has done as governor. While this is way down from his previous astronomical approval rating, it doesn’t seem nearly low enough for us to be able to expect that he will lose re-election.
The biggest question heading into the election will be: will Governor Lynch’s approval rating trump the anti-Obama sentiment in the state, thereby helping Paul Hodes win the senate seat, or will Republicans capitalize on the anti-Obama feeling to bring victory over the man who is part of the problem in Washington– Paul Hodes?
This election period is just starting to heat up, it is going to be a fun ride.
Arlen Specter has been in contact with the Obama regime concerning the possibility of his joining the regime in some capacity when his senate term expires in January.
The White House is already denying the idea that these negotiations were part of any deal between the regime and Arlen Specter in the event that Arlen Specter eventually lost his senate seat in return for his switching parties.
I would like nothing better than to take the Obama regime at its word that this wasn’t a deal negotiated as a contingency plan in case Arlen Specter lost his re-election bid, but in light of all of the shady backroom deals that lead to the passage of the healthcare reform bill, and in light of the job offers to Arlen Specter’s primary opponent– Joe Sestak– and to Andrew Romanoff, I am skeptical of the Obama regime’s innocence in this matter. I can’t help but think that this is some form of payback that probably was negotiated during the talks that led Arlen Specter to switch parties.
The Obama regime has already admitted that they dispatched President Clinton to “feel out” Joe Sestak’s willingness to accept a job that would preclude him from running against Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary, showing the world that Barack Obama has a proclivity in interfering in senate races. It isn’t beyond the realm of possibility of believability that Barack Obama would also come up with a contingency plan if Arlen Specter went on to lose his primary bid.
This story is still in its infancy and we do not know much about it, but there is one thing that we know for sure; we must watch this story closely.
Barack Obama approves taxpayer funding for abortion
During the healthcare reform debate it looked as though Bart Stupak and a coalition of pro-life Democrats might actually derail the healthcare bill. The issue at hand was Bart Stupak’s concern that federal taxpayer money would be used to fund abortion. Bart Stupak and Barack Obama reached a deal that assured final passage of the healthcare reform bill when Barack Obama agreed that he would sign an executive order that would prohibit federal funding of abortion.
Needless to say, I was quite upset at Bart Stupak for caving in so easily on abortion based solely on a promise by Barack Obama that federal monies would not be used for abortions.
This is what I had to say back then:
He must have more faith in the president actually keeping his word for once than I do. It really isn’t surprising that Bart Stupak and his pro-life coalition has finally caved in on this issue– we all knew that eventually he would– but it is disheartening to see our last line of defense penetrated at the last instance. Especially on a promise and not with anything that is actually binding
Of course it turns out that Bart Stupak sold the vote of his coalition for more than just a promise by Barack Obama– there was a little money involved— but that is neither here nor there for the purpose of this post.
Today it was learned that $160 million in taxpayer funds will be sent to Pennsylvania to set up a “high risk” insurance pool, and this pool will allow taxpayer money to be used to provide abortions.
Barack Obama remained true to his word; he signed the executive order that banned the federal funding of abortion just as he promised Bart Stupak he would, but we can see that Barack Obama’s word means absolutely nothing with this news, (we knew that anyway, but this is further proof), because the law trumps Barack Obama’s executive order.
Federal funding of abortions will be allowed in Pennsylvania, but this is just the first step in what will be many as this new healthcare reform bill becomes law over the next several years. It is only a matter of time before federal funding of abortion is commonplace.
Bart Stupak and the rest of the people who claimed to be pro-life Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. Bart Stupak’s decision to cave in on a Barack Obama promise cost him his job, but it cost a hell of allot more than just that, it cost untold multitudes of unborn babies their lives– for the price of an airport– and you and I get to pay for it.
Justice Department will not sue sanctuary cities which fail to comply with federal law
In light of the Justice Department’s decision to sue Arizona for basically trying to enforce federal law, the very same Justice Department just this week announced that they will not sue sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with the federal government where the federal government is trying to enforce immigration law.
There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law
The spin that the Obama regime is putting on these two cases is astounding. The justice department is claiming that because Arizona is trying to enforce federal immigration law– law that the federal government refuses to enforce– that somehow they are interfering with the federal government’s prosecution of the law, even though the federal government is not enforcing the law. If the federal government is not enforcing the law, how can Arizona be interfering with the federal government? But the Justice Department claims that because sanctuary cities are not using local funds to enforce federal immigration law– even though they are actively interfering in the prosecution of the law by their refusal to carry out the will of the federal government– that somehow their refusal to comply with federal law as applaudable.
Let me apologize here for the convoluted nature of that last paragraph, but it just highlights the convoluted logic of the federal government in these two cases. Jan Brewer’s statement on this decision says exactly what I was trying to say, only a whole lot better than I ever could:
President Obama’s administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law and not sue local governments that have adopted a patchwork of ‘sanctuary’ policies that directly violate federal law. These patchwork local ‘sanctuary’ policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials
Jan Brewer is exactly right, the federal government has this backwards. If you try to enforce the law, you end up being sued by the federal government; if you interfere with the federal government, nothing is done.
This is hardly a new phenomenon with the left however– we see it constantly on other issues– such as the second amendment. The left is always trying to pass over-reaching restrictions on gun ownership by law abiding citizens; yet those who commit violent crimes with weapons that are purchased illegally are given light sentences because they are victims of an unjust society, therefore they are not at fault. That also seems to be part of their justification in this case as well.
It is quite apparent that the federal government does not only not have a problem with people coming into this country illegally, but by their actions they prove that they actually condone it. After all, in an unjust society the criminal who breaks into this country illegally can not be held accountable for what this administration sees as a fundamental flaw in American law.
Barack Obama calls Al Qaeda a racist organization
When Nidal Hassan– a terrorist with ties to Al Qaeda– killed thirteen American heroes in cold blood at Fort Hood earlier this year the president’s response– after throwing a shout out to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow for winning the Congressional Medal of Honor (it turned out that the doctor was not a Medal of Honor recipient)– was to urge the American people not to jump to any conclusions. There has never been an admission by the president of Hassan’s ties to Al Qaeda. There was never a condemnation at Al Qaeda for their possible role in this attack.
When Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab– who claimed that he was working for Al Qaeda– tried to blow up an airplane on Christmas day there was no condemnation of Al Qaeda for their possible role in this attempted attack.
When Faisal Shahzad tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square the president was too busy vacationing and golfing to even bother to issue a statement for several days.
But today– while conducting an interview with South African Broadcasting– the president was finally fired up enough to condemn the actions of Al Qaeda because of their bombing last week in Uganda.
What you’ve seen in some of the statements that have been made by these terrorist organizations is that they do not regard African life as valuable in and of itself. They see it as a potential place where you can carry out ideological battles that kill innocents without regard to long-term consequences for their short-term tactical gains.
He continued by stating that Al Qaeda targets Africans as potential suicide bombers because they are basically a racist organization:
In short,” the official said, “al Qaeda is a racist organization that treats black Africans like cannon fodder and does not value human life
I find it very telling that the president refused to call Nadal Hassan, Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, and Faisal Shahzad terrorists when they either killed or tried to kill American citizens, yet when they killed citizens of another country he didn’t think twice to call Al Qaeda a terrorist organization.
He sated that Al Qaeda doesn’t value African life? No shit, they don’t value ANY life, this is a revelation to the president? They do not value the lives of anybody who is not a radicalized Muslim. Their acts of terrorism know no racial boundaries– either you are with them or you are against them. And if you are against them they feel the Koran justifies their killing of the infidels. If you are black, while, or Asian is of no concern to them if you are not a Muslim.
For Barack Obama to condemn them for their racist beliefs when they are willing to kill all races indiscriminately shows us exactly how out of touch this president is with the goals and stated beliefs of Al Qaeda.
At least Barack Obama finally showed just a little bit of emotion when it comes to Al Qaeda, I just wish he had condemned them as vehemently when they carried out these attacks on American soil.
Al Qaeda is not carrying out these attacks based on a racist philosophy, they are carrying out these attacks based on their radicalized version of their religion. For him to believe otherwise is a naive and dangerous flaw in this president’s understanding of the threat that all of the non-Muslims in this world face. The sooner this president realizes this, the better of we will all be.
This president is unwilling to admit why Al Qaeda carries out these attacks because he is afraid to upset the non-radicalized Muslims all across the world, but he is perfectly comfortable attacking them from a racist angle because just like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Michelle Obama; Barack Obama is nothing more than a race baiter himself.
Republicans want to know if Elena Kagan will recuse herself from challenges to Obamacare
All seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have sent a letter to Elena Kagan asking her if she has discussed the several states lawsuits to Obamacare with the Obama regime, and if she has, will she recuse herself from any of the challenges when they reach the Supreme Court.
If she has had discussions with the Obama regime regarding these lawsuits then federal law could require her to recuse herself from any trial on this issue. Federal law 28 U.S.C. 455 states that “a justice who formerly was a government employee is disqualified from ruling in any case where she expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case while in government employment.”
When Elena Kagan filled out her questionnaire before the Senate committee hearings she stated that if confirmed, “I would recuse in all matters for which I was counsel of record. I would also look to the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (although it is not formally binding on members of the Supreme Court of the United States), the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 28 U.S.C. 455, and any other relevant prescriptions. I would also consult with my colleagues in any case where recusal might be advisable.”
So the question now being asked by Republicans is, did Elena Kagan consult with the Obama regime on the pending lawsuits in regards to healthcare reform, and if she did, will she recuse herself from the hearings?
With the news that Republicans have managed to delay her committee vote by one week so they can more thoroughly review her records it seems like this is a perfectly legitimate line of questioning and she should answer these questions.
Will her words match her actions, or– much like Barack Obama– will her rhetoric not quite live up to her actions? In her questionnaire she mentioned that this law was not binding when it came to Supreme Court justices; that is her qualifier, and when she wrote that qualifier there is a probability that she had this very topic in mind, but she also stated that she would adhere to the spirit of the law, and that she would recuse herself from ANY matter in which she was a “counsel of record.”
In my mind the spirit of the law would dictate that she should recuse herself from this case if she did indeed have contact with the Obama regime about the lawsuits. But even if the law doesn’t require her to recuse herself from this case, she stated that she would recuse herself on ANY matter in which she was a counsel of record. If she was a counsel of record on this issue, we should be able to reasonably expect that she would remain true to her word and recuse herself from this case.
It will be interesting to see how she answers this question; if she states that she was not involved in discussions with the Obama regime on this topic, than the question is null and void, but if she did have conversations with the president she should be true to her word– whether required by law or not– and recuse herself from this case. For if she does not, she will not have remained true to her word before she was confirmed, how can we expect to take her at her word after she is confirmed?
During a town hall meeting with the people that he is supposed to be representing, Pete Stark shows us what the definition of a condescending, arrogant, out of touch, and ill informed politician really is when he was asked a question by a Minuteman about illegal immigration.
1955 video warns of the dangers of socialism in America
Below is a video from 1955 that warns the American people about the expansion of socialism in America by stealth methods. This is extremely relevent today when we watch what is happening before our eyes. Please take ten minutes out of your busy day to watch this video.
America's Watchtower 