Resist and Fight Tyrants!
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Congressional Candidate Lieutenant Colonel West speaking at the American Freedom tour
An inspiring message by someone who gets it!
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Townhall.com
For those who thirst for knowledge. Townhall.com this is a great site for thought provoking insight and opinion backed by facts. Enjoy
Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/
My personal favorite columnists...
Thomas Sowell
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/
Walter Williams
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/
John Stossel
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/
Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/
My personal favorite columnists...
Thomas Sowell
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/
Walter Williams
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/
John Stossel
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/
Sunday, November 22, 2009
A Vision Of Death
A vision accompanied with deductive reasoning, scientific evidence and factual data can be a beacon for grand societal advancement. However, a vision backed with assumptions, agendas, fraud and politics can be deadly. DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) was first synthesized in 1874 with no intended use but years later, in 1939, it was discovered that it contained properties that were effective against warding off several arthropods (insects). It was used extensively in the second half or World War II with great results in controlling mosquitoes from spreading malaria, lice and typhus. After the war, DDT was made available as an agricultural insecticide with tremendous results, virtually eradicating malaria in the free world. In 1970 the National Academy of Sciences stated: “To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. In little more than two decades DDT has prevented 500 Million human deaths due to malaria that would have otherwise have been inevitable.”
Enter the alarmist do gooder. In 1962, Silent Spring, written by Rachel Carson sounded the alarm. It raised concerns about the harm that pesticides may be causing. Most notably, she went after the pesticide DDT. The book suggested that the indiscriminate spraying of DDT may cause cancer and its agricultural use was a threat to wildlife, in particular the thinning of bird eggs. To back her theory, she erroneously represented a study to conform to her pre-conceived conclusion. In other words, the actual facts didn’t matter. It was her twisted vision of the “truth” that guided her conscience to get the word out. The book led to a public outcry by the nitwitted sponge heads. With the 1960’s peace, love and environmental movement, it gave the politicians the opening to come to the rescue.
Enter the alarmist government agency. In 1972, the Environmental Protection Agency entered into hearings on the safety and environmental impact of DDT. After all the evidence was presented, the Hearing Examiner Edmund Sweeny concluded: “DDT is not a carcinogenic, mutagenic hazard to man. The uses under regulations involved here do not have deleterious effect on fresh water fish, wild birds, or other wildlife…and… there is a present need for essential use of DDT.” Nonetheless, that conclusion was overruled by the EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus, who never attended a single day of the seven months of DDT hearings. With that, DDT was officially banned in the U.S and the rest of the world followed suit. The result, a preventable disease, malaria which poses no danger to humans or bird eggs re-emerged with deadly consequences. The carnage in the third world, primarily Africa, has been devastating. It’s estimated that over 30 to 40 million malaria deaths have occurred since the ban. So, let’s recap. A known pesticide that indisputably prevented human death was banned without having any alternative (as good or better) substitute. This is the equivalent of banning brakes in automobiles because they may fail and kill the driver while ignoring the fact that brakes virtually never fail and prevent death.
In September of 2006, the World Health Organization and the U.S Agency for International Development declared “Indoor residual spraying with DDT and other insecticides will again play a major role in [WHO's] efforts to fight the disease." Why, because “DDT has few if any adverse effects in human beings” and “Given the severity of the malaria epidemic now in Africa and parts of Asia, it is reasonable to be using limited amounts of DDT for indoor use” Even so, DDT is still banned in the U.S and Europe.
In conclusion, Rachel Carson is credited with having launched the global environmental movement. She’s considered a hero to the modern day tree huggers and is strongly admired by the current environmental deity, Al Gore. Rachel died in 1964 and was never able to see the carnage she helped unleash. At least she didn’t die from Malaria because the spraying of a safe, effective pesticide, DDT, assured that. She was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Jimmy Carter. In regards to William Ruckelshaus, it’s far more sinister. He was a member of the Environmental Defense Fund. Along with their environmental agenda several members were ardent population-control advocates. These nuts believed the planet would soon be overpopulated and something needed to be done to curtail this disaster. Therefore, it’s conceivable that Ruckelshaus ideology factored in his decision to ban DDT and he and his brethren viewed this as an effective policy to “control” the population. Heinrich Himmler would be proud!
Enter the alarmist do gooder. In 1962, Silent Spring, written by Rachel Carson sounded the alarm. It raised concerns about the harm that pesticides may be causing. Most notably, she went after the pesticide DDT. The book suggested that the indiscriminate spraying of DDT may cause cancer and its agricultural use was a threat to wildlife, in particular the thinning of bird eggs. To back her theory, she erroneously represented a study to conform to her pre-conceived conclusion. In other words, the actual facts didn’t matter. It was her twisted vision of the “truth” that guided her conscience to get the word out. The book led to a public outcry by the nitwitted sponge heads. With the 1960’s peace, love and environmental movement, it gave the politicians the opening to come to the rescue.
Enter the alarmist government agency. In 1972, the Environmental Protection Agency entered into hearings on the safety and environmental impact of DDT. After all the evidence was presented, the Hearing Examiner Edmund Sweeny concluded: “DDT is not a carcinogenic, mutagenic hazard to man. The uses under regulations involved here do not have deleterious effect on fresh water fish, wild birds, or other wildlife…and… there is a present need for essential use of DDT.” Nonetheless, that conclusion was overruled by the EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus, who never attended a single day of the seven months of DDT hearings. With that, DDT was officially banned in the U.S and the rest of the world followed suit. The result, a preventable disease, malaria which poses no danger to humans or bird eggs re-emerged with deadly consequences. The carnage in the third world, primarily Africa, has been devastating. It’s estimated that over 30 to 40 million malaria deaths have occurred since the ban. So, let’s recap. A known pesticide that indisputably prevented human death was banned without having any alternative (as good or better) substitute. This is the equivalent of banning brakes in automobiles because they may fail and kill the driver while ignoring the fact that brakes virtually never fail and prevent death.
In September of 2006, the World Health Organization and the U.S Agency for International Development declared “Indoor residual spraying with DDT and other insecticides will again play a major role in [WHO's] efforts to fight the disease." Why, because “DDT has few if any adverse effects in human beings” and “Given the severity of the malaria epidemic now in Africa and parts of Asia, it is reasonable to be using limited amounts of DDT for indoor use” Even so, DDT is still banned in the U.S and Europe.
In conclusion, Rachel Carson is credited with having launched the global environmental movement. She’s considered a hero to the modern day tree huggers and is strongly admired by the current environmental deity, Al Gore. Rachel died in 1964 and was never able to see the carnage she helped unleash. At least she didn’t die from Malaria because the spraying of a safe, effective pesticide, DDT, assured that. She was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Jimmy Carter. In regards to William Ruckelshaus, it’s far more sinister. He was a member of the Environmental Defense Fund. Along with their environmental agenda several members were ardent population-control advocates. These nuts believed the planet would soon be overpopulated and something needed to be done to curtail this disaster. Therefore, it’s conceivable that Ruckelshaus ideology factored in his decision to ban DDT and he and his brethren viewed this as an effective policy to “control” the population. Heinrich Himmler would be proud!
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?
The latest mantra of the environmentalist brigade is that “the debate is over; it’s a known fact that global warming exists” Bullshit! The debate has just begun. The problem with these militants is they try and demonize any opposing viewpoint that doesn’t fit their stance. They only want those ‘studies’ supporting their beliefs to make headlines and a willing press, over the years, has been happy to comply. For example, it made headlines when 1,600 scientists signed a letter of the “devastating consequences” of global warming. But virtually unreported was that 17,000 scientists signed a petition, which cautioned against the alarmism, saying there’s no convincing evidence that greenhouse gases disrupt the earth’s climate. www.oism.org/pproject/
60 minutes did a segment earlier this year on how global warming, due to human activity, is causing the arctic to melt. But absent was any opposing viewpoint. There was one reference to how the skeptics “have brought up some very, very interesting issues over the last few years” but, personally, I found it condescending. The main cause, they contend, is the rise in carbon dioxide CO2 concentration levels. However, they never provided the most basic of comparisons: The correlation between temperature change and CO2 concentration, and here’s why. Since 1880, during the period when the lowest CO2 concentration increase occurred, the arctic had its highest warming trend. When the concentration began to significantly increase, the arctic temperature cooled then leveled off and has remained virtually unchanged since. Hmm! My point, anyone can find a study to support their viewpoint.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172188,00.html
I have a couple theories on what drives these people. One, it’s a lot easier for a scientist and the global warming alarmists to get funding with scaremongering and doomsday scenarios. If the sales pitch were “to date, we don’t really have any compelling evidence but we would like to keep looking into it” The government grants and philanthropic donations dry up. The second is a modern day syndrome I call “Since I have free time on my hands, I need to be part of a significant world changing movement” (a bit wordy but it fits). Freedom, capitalism and the innovation that stems from it have allowed life’s basic necessities; food, water and shelter to be virtual after thoughts. These advancements have given people the time and means to pursue there passion and for the most part, this is a great thing. However, there are always unintended consequences. Like many, the environmentalists want their life’s to have purpose and the cause they have chosen is to save the planet. What could be more important! However, they are so convinced it’s real that any information contrary to their viewpoint is irrelevant. How dare anyone question the important work they’re doing.
Hey, nobody wants to destroy the environment and it’s good that we debate the effects, if any, human advancement has on the planet. Some basic regulations, over the years, have insured that we act more responsibly. The hardcore environmentalist movement has veered off the path with their uncompromising ability for civil debate. It’s this narrow mindedness and arrogance that actually hurts there cause.
60 minutes did a segment earlier this year on how global warming, due to human activity, is causing the arctic to melt. But absent was any opposing viewpoint. There was one reference to how the skeptics “have brought up some very, very interesting issues over the last few years” but, personally, I found it condescending. The main cause, they contend, is the rise in carbon dioxide CO2 concentration levels. However, they never provided the most basic of comparisons: The correlation between temperature change and CO2 concentration, and here’s why. Since 1880, during the period when the lowest CO2 concentration increase occurred, the arctic had its highest warming trend. When the concentration began to significantly increase, the arctic temperature cooled then leveled off and has remained virtually unchanged since. Hmm! My point, anyone can find a study to support their viewpoint.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172188,00.html
I have a couple theories on what drives these people. One, it’s a lot easier for a scientist and the global warming alarmists to get funding with scaremongering and doomsday scenarios. If the sales pitch were “to date, we don’t really have any compelling evidence but we would like to keep looking into it” The government grants and philanthropic donations dry up. The second is a modern day syndrome I call “Since I have free time on my hands, I need to be part of a significant world changing movement” (a bit wordy but it fits). Freedom, capitalism and the innovation that stems from it have allowed life’s basic necessities; food, water and shelter to be virtual after thoughts. These advancements have given people the time and means to pursue there passion and for the most part, this is a great thing. However, there are always unintended consequences. Like many, the environmentalists want their life’s to have purpose and the cause they have chosen is to save the planet. What could be more important! However, they are so convinced it’s real that any information contrary to their viewpoint is irrelevant. How dare anyone question the important work they’re doing.
Hey, nobody wants to destroy the environment and it’s good that we debate the effects, if any, human advancement has on the planet. Some basic regulations, over the years, have insured that we act more responsibly. The hardcore environmentalist movement has veered off the path with their uncompromising ability for civil debate. It’s this narrow mindedness and arrogance that actually hurts there cause.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell is one of the most profound and insightful writers on the planet. Here is a link to his latest article "Suicide of the West". After reading check out his archive and make room in your head for his thought provoking wisdom. Whether you agree with everything or not is irrelevant. If an essay leaves you inquisitive then it has met its purpose. Enjoy
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/09/01/suicide_of_the_west?page=full
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/09/01/suicide_of_the_west?page=full
Monday, August 31, 2009
Personal Injury (Tort) Lawyers
Tort law emerged as a means for an individual to seek compensatory damages against another party’s negligence when no contractual obligation is in place. In essence, a noble remedy to right a wrong. Unfortunately, the modern day practice has been hijacked by the professions bottom feeders. It has evolved from suing businesses that make harmful products or negligent doctors to open game on all perceived misdeeds. These parasites file countless lawsuits that tie up an already overloaded system. It’s not about the truth or helping the ‘little guy’ anymore, it’s all about creating a victim and suing the institution with the deepest pockets. They demonize professions, shakedown industries and pay so called “experts” to fog the facts and prey on a jury’s sympathy. And it works!
A prime example was the breast implant scare in the early 90’s. Lawyers claimed silicone from implants could leak causing cancer and autoimmune diseases and Dow Corning, the maker of silicon breast implants, was responsible. The lawyer’s brought in doctors to testify that Dow’s reckless behavior had resulted in 1% of woman with implants to develop connective tissue disease. However, what they neglected to reveal was that 1% of woman without implants also had the disease. Dow’s lawyers have some responsibility for not impugning this more convincingly but the publicity spectacle unleashed by the lawyers on the airwaves “Your implants may be causing cancer, autoimmune…etc” was too much to overcome. The result: several multi-million dollar verdicts and Dow Corning filing for bankruptcy.
Although these extortionist are willing to battle in the court room, their main objective is to get companies to settle! They attack like piranha until the carcass is bare. Trial lawyers lost over 700 lawsuits against the tobacco industry before finally winning one. Once the flood gates had opened, a settlement was reached for $206 billion to stop the onslaught. The most relentless barrage has come against the asbestos industry. Along with the manufacturers, they sued companies that had ‘any’ connection to the industry (Owens-Corning, Federal Mogul, Kaiser Aluminum, Sears, Ford, GM, Chrysler….etc). Many ended up filing for bankruptcy. The lawsuits continue and the final toll is expected to exceed $200 billion. Hey, both industries had scumbag executives who covered up the risks for their own selfish gain and the results were devastating to many people. But the reality is most of those responsible are long gone or dead as well as most of the victims.
The lawyers recent assault has been on the pharmaceutical industry, most notably the pain medication Vioxx manufactured by Merck & Co. Thousands of lawsuits have already been filed and some already adjudicated. A few things to ponder… Merck did recall Vioxx and I don’t know the extent, if any, of their culpability but what about the mass majority of individuals who used Vioxx with positive results. How much suffering have they endured because of the recall? Maybe other pain medications don’t work as well for them. Didn’t the FDA approve the drug after it successfully went through their labyrinth of obstacles and regulations? (On average, it takes 10-12 years and an investment of $900 million to get a drug to market) Much of the money Merck is spending to defend itself, and eventually payout in settlements, would be put into R&D to develop new drugs that could better people’s lives. Will other drug makers eventually pull their painkillers for fear of lawsuits? Let’s see how it plays out.
The most destructive aspect of this is the trial lawyer’s success in convincing us we’re all just victims. It has become a reflex for many to utter “I’m gonna sue” if we slip on the wet pavement, are offended by another’s words or actions…etc. We relinquish our own responsibility so we can blame someone else and get ‘ours’. The lawyers are the pusher and we’re the addicts in this game. There is a fix to stop much of this nonsense. It’s called ‘loser pays’ and most advanced countries already use it. If you file a lawsuit and lose, you pay the defendants court costs. But guess who has one of the most powerful PAC’s in Washington. That’s right! It’s The Association of Trial Lawyers of America. When you include the PAC’s contributions with the individual and soft money (now called 527 committees) donations, they are the largest political contributors ensuring the good ol’ boys on the Hill don’t change the current racket.
In closing, any individual that knowingly lies or intentionally covers up the associated risks deserves punishment and the victims just compensation. Sadly, with the current tactics employed by the lawyers this correlation continues to get skewed. They have successfully blurred the line between actual negligence and personal responsibility and in the process have enriched themselves to the rest our detriment. Way to go guys! Maybe people will eventually wake up and see the damage these people do far outweighs any good that comes from it. But, I doubt it.
Some notable parasites:
John Edwards
Former NC Senator and V.P. candidate
Product liability and medical mal-practice most notably cerebral palsy cases
In a case where he represented a cerebral palsy patient, Jennifer Campbell, he uttered the following in his closing arguments "I have to tell you right now – I didn't plan to talk about this – right now I feel her [Jennifer], I feel her presence...[Jennifer's] inside me and she's talking to you." …What nauseating bullshit!
Peter Angelos
Owner of the Baltimore Orioles
Product liability most notably asbestos cases
He stated “If it wasn’t for the American lawyer, your basic civil rights today would be gone” …Thank goodness they’re looking out for us!
Link to some frivolous lawsuits:
http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_collection.asp?wacky=0
Sources:
http://www.ppdi.com/corporate/faq/about_drug_development/home.htm
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=usgovinfo&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opensecrets.org%2Forgs%2Flist.asp%3Forder%3DA
http://www.triallawyersinc.com/html/part10.html
John Stossel, Give Me A Break
John Banzaff, Antitobacco activist
Michael Horowitz, The Hudson Institute
A prime example was the breast implant scare in the early 90’s. Lawyers claimed silicone from implants could leak causing cancer and autoimmune diseases and Dow Corning, the maker of silicon breast implants, was responsible. The lawyer’s brought in doctors to testify that Dow’s reckless behavior had resulted in 1% of woman with implants to develop connective tissue disease. However, what they neglected to reveal was that 1% of woman without implants also had the disease. Dow’s lawyers have some responsibility for not impugning this more convincingly but the publicity spectacle unleashed by the lawyers on the airwaves “Your implants may be causing cancer, autoimmune…etc” was too much to overcome. The result: several multi-million dollar verdicts and Dow Corning filing for bankruptcy.
Although these extortionist are willing to battle in the court room, their main objective is to get companies to settle! They attack like piranha until the carcass is bare. Trial lawyers lost over 700 lawsuits against the tobacco industry before finally winning one. Once the flood gates had opened, a settlement was reached for $206 billion to stop the onslaught. The most relentless barrage has come against the asbestos industry. Along with the manufacturers, they sued companies that had ‘any’ connection to the industry (Owens-Corning, Federal Mogul, Kaiser Aluminum, Sears, Ford, GM, Chrysler….etc). Many ended up filing for bankruptcy. The lawsuits continue and the final toll is expected to exceed $200 billion. Hey, both industries had scumbag executives who covered up the risks for their own selfish gain and the results were devastating to many people. But the reality is most of those responsible are long gone or dead as well as most of the victims.
The lawyers recent assault has been on the pharmaceutical industry, most notably the pain medication Vioxx manufactured by Merck & Co. Thousands of lawsuits have already been filed and some already adjudicated. A few things to ponder… Merck did recall Vioxx and I don’t know the extent, if any, of their culpability but what about the mass majority of individuals who used Vioxx with positive results. How much suffering have they endured because of the recall? Maybe other pain medications don’t work as well for them. Didn’t the FDA approve the drug after it successfully went through their labyrinth of obstacles and regulations? (On average, it takes 10-12 years and an investment of $900 million to get a drug to market) Much of the money Merck is spending to defend itself, and eventually payout in settlements, would be put into R&D to develop new drugs that could better people’s lives. Will other drug makers eventually pull their painkillers for fear of lawsuits? Let’s see how it plays out.
The most destructive aspect of this is the trial lawyer’s success in convincing us we’re all just victims. It has become a reflex for many to utter “I’m gonna sue” if we slip on the wet pavement, are offended by another’s words or actions…etc. We relinquish our own responsibility so we can blame someone else and get ‘ours’. The lawyers are the pusher and we’re the addicts in this game. There is a fix to stop much of this nonsense. It’s called ‘loser pays’ and most advanced countries already use it. If you file a lawsuit and lose, you pay the defendants court costs. But guess who has one of the most powerful PAC’s in Washington. That’s right! It’s The Association of Trial Lawyers of America. When you include the PAC’s contributions with the individual and soft money (now called 527 committees) donations, they are the largest political contributors ensuring the good ol’ boys on the Hill don’t change the current racket.
In closing, any individual that knowingly lies or intentionally covers up the associated risks deserves punishment and the victims just compensation. Sadly, with the current tactics employed by the lawyers this correlation continues to get skewed. They have successfully blurred the line between actual negligence and personal responsibility and in the process have enriched themselves to the rest our detriment. Way to go guys! Maybe people will eventually wake up and see the damage these people do far outweighs any good that comes from it. But, I doubt it.
Some notable parasites:
John Edwards
Former NC Senator and V.P. candidate
Product liability and medical mal-practice most notably cerebral palsy cases
In a case where he represented a cerebral palsy patient, Jennifer Campbell, he uttered the following in his closing arguments "I have to tell you right now – I didn't plan to talk about this – right now I feel her [Jennifer], I feel her presence...[Jennifer's] inside me and she's talking to you." …What nauseating bullshit!
Peter Angelos
Owner of the Baltimore Orioles
Product liability most notably asbestos cases
He stated “If it wasn’t for the American lawyer, your basic civil rights today would be gone” …Thank goodness they’re looking out for us!
Link to some frivolous lawsuits:
http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_collection.asp?wacky=0
Sources:
http://www.ppdi.com/corporate/faq/about_drug_development/home.htm
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=usgovinfo&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opensecrets.org%2Forgs%2Flist.asp%3Forder%3DA
http://www.triallawyersinc.com/html/part10.html
John Stossel, Give Me A Break
John Banzaff, Antitobacco activist
Michael Horowitz, The Hudson Institute
Stick It In Your Ear(mark)
No, I’m not talking about your pierced earring scars. Earmarks (or pork) are those special state and local projects that get tacked onto a federal appropriation bill. By one estimate, it’s over $70 billion and counting this year alone. Yes, the good old boys (and gals) sneak in their pet projects to “payback” a lobbyist or gain favor with the local electorate. Some examples include:
$229,000 for dairy education in Iowa
$500,000 for a swimming pool in Banning, CA
$600,000 for the Center of End of Life Electronics in West Virginia
$1,000,000 for the Tourism Development Association in Kentucky
It’s often impossible to find out who sponsored the project because they aren’t required to be part of the legislative text of the bill. Many times what happens is it gets slipped in during conference, without the sponsor’s identity, and it becomes a footnote. How nice!
There are few congressmen trying to end this nonsense, most notably Jeff Flake of Arizona. He’s an outspoken critic of the practice and has introduced legislation (H.R. 1642 The Obligation of Funds Transparency Act) to reform the process. It would require that each earmark be part of the original legislative text so it can be debated on the house floor and it would also identify the projects sponsor. How radical! It has been in committee for a year and a half and probably will never see the light of day.
See how your congressman voted, to debate and force a Yes-No vote, on some notable earmarks.
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/08/jeff-flakes-anti-earmark-pork-fighting.html
$229,000 for dairy education in Iowa
$500,000 for a swimming pool in Banning, CA
$600,000 for the Center of End of Life Electronics in West Virginia
$1,000,000 for the Tourism Development Association in Kentucky
It’s often impossible to find out who sponsored the project because they aren’t required to be part of the legislative text of the bill. Many times what happens is it gets slipped in during conference, without the sponsor’s identity, and it becomes a footnote. How nice!
There are few congressmen trying to end this nonsense, most notably Jeff Flake of Arizona. He’s an outspoken critic of the practice and has introduced legislation (H.R. 1642 The Obligation of Funds Transparency Act) to reform the process. It would require that each earmark be part of the original legislative text so it can be debated on the house floor and it would also identify the projects sponsor. How radical! It has been in committee for a year and a half and probably will never see the light of day.
See how your congressman voted, to debate and force a Yes-No vote, on some notable earmarks.
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/08/jeff-flakes-anti-earmark-pork-fighting.html
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Founding Father's Quotes
It always amazes how profound the founding fathers were. There wisdom endures.......
Thomas Jefferson
“It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong.”
“He who knows best knows how little he knows”
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
John Adams
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence"
“Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
Thomas Jefferson
“It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong.”
“He who knows best knows how little he knows”
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
John Adams
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence"
“Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
