Letters From a Pennsylvania Farmer
By John Dickenson

My Dear Countrymen,
I am a farmer, settled after a variety of fortunes near the banks of the River Delaware in the province of Pennsylvania. I received a liberal education and have been engaged in the busy scenes of life; but am now convinced that a man may be as happy without bustle as with it. My farm is small; my servants are few and good; I have a little money at interest; I wish for no more; my employment in my own affairs is easy; and with a contented, grateful mind . . . I am completing the number of days allotted to me by divine goodness.
Being generally master of my time, I spend a good deal of it in a library, which I think the most valuable part of my small estate; and being acquainted with two or three gentlemen of abilities and learning who honor me with their friendship, I have acquired, I believe, a greater share of knowledge in history and the laws and constitution of my country than is generally attained by men of my class, many of them not being so fortunate as I have been in the opportunities of getting information.
From infancy I was taught to love humanity and liberty. Inquiry and experience have since confirmed my reverence for the lessons then given me by convincing me more fully of their truth and excellence. Benevolence toward mankind excites wishes for their welfare, and such wishes endear the means of fulfilling them. These can be found in liberty only, and therefore her sacred cause ought to be espoused by every man, on every occasion, to the utmost of his power. As a charitable but poor person does not withhold his mite because he cannot relieve all the distresses of the miserable, so should not any honest man suppress his sentiments concerning freedom, however small their influence is likely to be. Perhaps he may "touch some wheel" that will have an effect greater than he could reasonably expect.
These being my sentiments, I am encouraged to offer to you, my countrymen, my thoughts on some late transactions that appear to me to be of the utmost importance to you. Conscious of my defects, I have waited some time in expectation of seeing the subject treated by persons much better qualified for the task; but being therein disappointed, and apprehensive that longer delays will be injurious, I venture at length to request the attention of the public, pray that these lines may be read with the same zeal for the happiness of British America with which they were written.
With a good deal of surprise I have observed that little notice has been taken of an act of Parliament, as injurious in its principle to the liberties of these colonies as the Stamp Act was: I mean the act for suspending the legislation of New York.
The assembly of that government complied with a former act of Parliament, requiring certain provisions to be made for the troops in America, in every particular, I think, except the articles of salt, pepper, and vinegar. In my opinion they acted imprudently, considering all circumstances, in not complying so far as would have given satisfaction as several colonies did. But my dislike of their conduct in that instance has not blinded me so much that I cannot plainly perceive that they have been punished in a manner pernicious to American freedom and justly alarming to all the colonies.
If the British Parliament has a legal authority to issue an order that we shall furnish a single article for the troops here and compel obedience to that order, they have the same right to issue an order for us supply those troops with arms, clothes, and every necessary, and to compel obedience to that order also; in short, to lay any burdens they please upon us. What is this but taxing us at a certain sum and leaving us only the manner of raising it? How is this mode more tolerable than the Stamp Act? Would that act have appeared more pleasing to Americans if, being ordered thereby to raise the sum total of the taxes, the mighty privilege had been left to them of saying how much should be paid for an instrument of writing on paper, and how much for another on parchment?
An act of Parliament commanding us to do a certain thing, if it has any validity, is a tax upon us for the expense that accrues in complying with it, and for this reason, I believe, every colony on the continent that chose to give a mark of their respect for Great Britain, in complying with the act relating to the troops, cautiously avoided the mention of that act, lest their conduct should be attributed to its supposed obligation.
The matter being thus stated, the assembly of New York either had or had no right to refuse submission to that act. If they had, and I imagine no American will say they had not, then the Parliament had no right to compel them to execute it. If they had not that right, they had no right to punish them for not executing it; and therefore had no right to suspend their legislation, which is a punishment. In fact, if the people of New York cannot be legally taxed but by their own representatives, they cannot be legally deprived of the privilege of legislation, only for insisting on that exclusive privilege of taxation. If they may be legally deprived in such a case of the privilege of legislation, why may they not, with equal reason, be deprived of every other privilege? Or why may not every colony be treated in the same manner, when any of them shall dare to deny their assent to any impositions that shall be directed? Or what signifies the repeal of the Stamp Act, if these colonies are to lose their other privileges by not tamely surrendering that of taxation?
There is one consideration arising from the suspension which is not generally attended to but shows its importance very clearly. It was not necessary that this suspension should be caused by an act of Parliament. The Crown might have restrained the governor of New York even from call ing the assembly together, by its prerogative in the royal governments. This step, I sup pose, would have been taken if the conduct of the assembly of New York had been regarded as an act of disobedience to the Crown alone. But it is regarded as an act of "disobedience to the authority of the British legislature." This gives the suspension a consequence vastly more affecting. It is a parliamentary assertion of the supreme authority of the British legislature over these colonies in the point of taxation; and it is intended to compel New York into a submission to that authority. It seems therefore to me as much a violation of the liberty of the people of that province, and consequently of all these colonies, as if the Parliament had sent a number of regiments to be quartered upon them, till they should comply.
For it is evident that the suspension meant as a compulsion; and the method of compelling is totally indifferent. It is indeed probable that the sight of red coats and the hearing of drums would have been most alarming, because people are generally more influenced by their eyes and ears than by their reason. But whoever seriously considers the matter must perceive that a dreadful stroke is aimed at the liberty of these colonies. I say of these colonies; for the cause of one is the cause of all. If the Parliament may lawfully deprive New York of any of her rights, it may deprive any or all the other colonies of their rights; and nothing can possibly so much encourage such at tempts as a mutual inattention to the interest of each other. To divide and thus to destroy is the first political maxim in attacking those who are powerful by their union. He certainly is not a wise man who folds his arms and reposes himself at home, seeing with unconcern the flames that have invaded his neighbor's house without using any endeavors to extinguish them. When Mr. Hampden's ship-money cause for 3s. 4d. was tried, all the people of England, with anxious expectations, interested themselves in the important decision; and when the slightest point touching the freedom of one colony is agitated, I earnestly wish that all the rest may with equal ardor support their sister. Very much may be said on this sub ject, but I hope more at present is unnecessary.
With concern I have observed that two assemblies of this province have sat and ad journed without taking any notice of this act. It may perhaps be asked: What would have been proper for them to do? I am by no means fond of inflammatory measures. I detest them. I should be sorry that anything should be done which might justly displease our sovereign or our mother country. But a firm, modest exertion of a free spirit should never be wanting on public occasions. It appears to me that it would have been suffi cient for the assembly to have ordered our agents to represent to the King's ministers their sense of the suspending act and to pray for its repeal. Thus we should have borne our testimony against it; and might therefore reasonably expect that on a like occasion we might receive the same assistance from the other colonies.
Small things grow great by concord.
A FARMER

OBAMA AND CITIZENSHIP
My take on the situation is that if Obama is really a true citizen of the United State then he should have nothing to fear in terms of releasing his original birth certificate. It is his lack of cooperation that brings me concern. I believe that Barak Obama should be required to submit to the United States of America his birth certificate. If Americans voted him in then Americans deserve to know where he is from.
Now if it is true that he really in not a U.S citizen (I he really is then why is he afraid to submit his birth certificate) we need to have another election and vote in a man or woman who meets all the constitutional requirements to be President of the United States of America. But why are we doing this now? Shouldn’t this have been done after the primaries? Why is there not an amendment somewhere that safe-guards against this?


By the way watch the video


VIDEONETDAILY
"Watch Obama commercial they don't want you to seeFox, CNN, MSNBC refuse ads questioning Barack's eligibility"
Posted: January 08, 200912:14 am Eastern© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Supremes to Take Up Eligibility Again
Fox, CNN, MSNBC and others refuse ads questioning Obama's eligibility
On Friday, January 16, a conference is scheduled at the U.S. Supreme Court during which justices will consider behind closed doors—again—taking up a case that could finally put to rest the questions about whether President-elect Barack Obama qualifies to occupy the Oval Office under the Constitution's requirement that he be a "natural born" citizen.This is your last chance to be heard before the Inauguration!

Watch the Video
Lingering questions continue to leave a cloud over the impending presidency of a man whose relatives have reported he was born in Kenya and who has decided, for whatever reason, not to release a bona fide copy of his original birth certificate in its complete form.
When WND columnist Janet Porter when tried to purchase airtime for a 60-second commerical publicizing the eligibility issue, CNBC, MSNBC, Headline News, CNN and Fox all refused to sell her airtime. The ad to be broadcast is available on YouTube.
Janet—who was trying to buy airtime on behalf of her organization, Faith2Action.org—recently raised some of the more significant impacts that could result should eligibility questions continue without answers:
"What if an impostor from another country ran for the presidency and won?" she questioned. "What if the media blocked any news of his birthplace and citizenship? What if the media censorship even blocked paid advertising which tried to expose it?
"What if no one had the courage to challenge or verify it? What if he was inaugurated illegally? What if the military had to answer to a commander in chief who was illegitimate? What if every law he signed was invalid?"
And, she wonders, "What if it all happened on our watch?"

A little of the big truth

This is PATHETIC people. I have always tried to view myself as being tolerant toward Obama supporters but that has officially changed. I have just watched a video clip of 12 Obama supporters and if that is the template for the majority (I know not all) then IT SHOULD BE MANDATORY FOR PEOPLE TO PASS A TEST IN ORDER TO VOTE!!! And by-the-way look at this to see how idiotic the Obama supporters really are. It is a poll done by Zogby and it is really, really, really scary.

Zogby Poll

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25%
chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet.....

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

For further information on this project, or to schedule an interview with the producer, please e-mail us at: questions@howobamagotelected.com

It looks like these nuts know more about the Republican party than the Democratic party, the one they voted for; and whose fault is this? Do I really have to say?

My intro

Hey! My name is Adam Shirley and I am an engineering major at Gainesville State College here in Georgia. I am a born-again Christian who loves God and my country. I am a conservative and hold strictly to conservative values. I will not try to force my political opinions on anyone, I am just going to comment on and state documented facts for my readers to reach their own conclusion and formulate their own opinion. America is a free country and if you do not like what you are reading publish your own blog or go somewhere else.

Since Nov. 4, when Barack Obama became the president-elect of the United States of America, I decided to start a blog to voice facts and figures about his administration that the biased, liberal, communistic, media will not say. Over the next 4 years I will be giving news and reporting about the events in the world that are the direct result of having a liberal president in office.