The following was written by Michael W. Smith:
https://michaelwsmith.com/the-sacrifices-made-by-the-declaration-signers/
"What happened to the signers of the Declaration of Independence?
This is the Price They Paid
Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed 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 would be 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 gristmill 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.”
We will win this.
Yes..
Our arms are different than those in 1776. Digital. Memes. Information. We’re all on the front line. I’m also not naive. It could come to what you “hope” for. I for one hope it doesn’t.
This war has not progressed to armed conflict. God willing, it will not come to that. If it does come to that, I cannot speak for anyone else, but believe me, I am fully prepared to take up arms and engage in combat.
Worst case is that one of the fed up states exists the US
It is a tough thing for a State to secede from the Union. The States are so entwined together that none could make it as an independent nation for quite some time. It would take decades to unravel the complications of a State seceding from the Union. It would be far easier if multiple States seceded together. This wouldn't be good for the US, but if it stops another civil war, it may be a viable option.
Seceding is what caused the first civil war.
Yes, I am aware. I think this time, everywhere secedes except for some of the big cities. Considering the county win map from 2020, I imagine that 90% of every State would secede and all that would be left would be these poor shit cities. It won't be much of a war.
You had fed right.
Did you mean exit?
Why have we been called
We are called for the same reasons these men signed the declaration of independence. If you haven't read it in a while read it today it's very inspiring. Or better yet listen to JFK read it on YouTube vid.
Psyops: Different kind of war, different kind of combatants. We've been held in reserve, our weapon is our vote. Locked and loaded for 2024.
Asked chatgpt for more because this was a great topic
John Hancock, who served as the President of the Second Continental Congress, went on to be the first Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Despite the hefty price on his head, he led Massachusetts throughout the Revolutionary War and continued to serve in various political capacities until his death in 1793.
Benjamin Franklin, already a renowned scientist, inventor, and writer by the time he signed the Declaration, continued to contribute significantly to the new nation. He served as a diplomat in France during the Revolutionary War, securing critical support for the American cause. He also played a crucial role in drafting the U.S. Constitution. He passed away in 1790, widely celebrated as one of America's most influential Founding Fathers.
Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, had a lengthy and illustrious political career. He served as the United States Minister to France, the first U.S. Secretary of State under President George Washington, Vice President under John Adams, and was elected the third President of the United States, serving two terms from 1801 to 1809. Jefferson also founded the University of Virginia.
Samuel Adams, a significant figure in the early stages of the American Revolution, went on to serve as the Governor of Massachusetts. He continued to hold public offices and was one of the strongest proponents of republican values.
Robert Morris, a wealthy merchant at the time of the signing, financed a significant portion of the Revolutionary War, earning him the nickname "Financier of the Revolution". However, his subsequent ventures were less successful, leading to bankruptcy and a three-year stint in debtor's prison. After his release, he lived a quiet, private life until his death in 1806.
Roger Sherman, the only person to have signed all four great state papers of the U.S: the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, continued to serve in the U.S Congress and later as a senator for Connecticut. He is also known for proposing the Great Compromise during the Constitutional Convention, a foundational element in the structure of U.S. government.
Richard Stockton of New Jersey was captured by the British in November 1776. He was released in poor health in 1777 and his estate had been looted and destroyed by the British. Despite this, he continued to serve New Jersey in a legal capacity until his death in 1781. Stockton University in New Jersey is named in his honor.
Charles Carroll of Maryland, the only Catholic signatory and the longest-lived signer of the Declaration, went on to help draft the Maryland Constitution and served as the first United States Senator for Maryland. Despite anti-Catholic sentiment, he was highly respected for his political acumen and integrity.
William Ellery of Rhode Island, whose home was destroyed during the Revolutionary War, continued to serve in the Congress for over a decade after the signing of the Declaration. He later served as the Customs Collector of Newport, a position he held until his death. He was also an active abolitionist.
Dr. Benjamin Rush, one of the signers from Pennsylvania, was a prominent physician and social reformer. Despite being accused of treason by the British, he continued to serve the newly formed United States, including advocating for the abolition of slavery, prison reform, and improvements in public health. He is often referred to as the "Father of American Psychiatry".
George Wythe from Virginia, a mentor to Thomas Jefferson, served as a delegate to the Continental Congress and signed the Declaration. After the Revolution, he became one of the first professors of law in America and continued teaching future presidents such as Jefferson and John Marshall. His commitment to law and justice remained until his death under suspicious circumstances in 1806.
Caesar Rodney of Delaware, despite suffering from asthma and skin cancer, rode 80 miles through a stormy night to cast his vote for independence. Rodney would later serve as President (Governor) of Delaware during the American Revolution. He remained an active politician until his health declined, leading to his death in 1784.
William Whipple of New Hampshire, who was a successful merchant and a sea captain, continued his service in the Revolutionary War where he rose to the rank of Major General. He participated in the successful defeat of General Burgoyne at the Battle of Saratoga in 1777. After the war, Whipple served as a judge for the state of New Hampshire until his death in 1785.
Francis Hopkinson of New Jersey was a versatile man known for his skills as a lawyer, author, artist, and musician. He contributed to the design of the American flag and also served as a judge and church vestryman after signing the Declaration. Despite the British burning his home during the Revolutionary War, he contributed to the creation of the Great Seal of the United States and designed seals for several government departments.
Samuel Huntington of Connecticut, a self-made man who rose from being a cooper's apprentice to a prominent lawyer and politician, served as the President of the Continental Congress when the Articles of Confederation were ratified. He later became the Governor of Connecticut and served in that capacity for over a decade until his death in 1796.
Oliver Wolcott of Connecticut served as a military leader during the Revolutionary War and was not present for the actual signing of the Declaration but affixed his signature later. He went on to serve as the Governor of Connecticut from 1796 until his death in 1797.
James Wilson of Pennsylvania, a prominent legal scholar, participated in the drafting of the United States Constitution and was one of the six original justices appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court of the United States. His contributions to American jurisprudence continue to be widely respected.
Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, a merchant and politician, went on to become the Vice President of the United States under James Madison. He is most known for the term "gerrymandering," a method of redrawing political districts to favor one's party, which occurred during his governorship in Massachusetts.
Matthew Thornton of New Hampshire, a physician and statesman, served in the New Hampshire House of Representatives after signing the Declaration. He later moved to Maine and practiced medicine until his death in 1803.
Philip Livingston of New York, a merchant and statesman, continued to serve in the Congress until his death in 1778. Despite losing his property during the war, he remained a dedicated patriot. His statue stands in the National Statuary Hall Collection in the United States Capitol.
Fantastic use of GPT!
This is one of those topics that should be explored in great depth and detail in our nation's schools.
One day, when President Trump returns to office, we will have our Garden of Heroes with monuments to each and every one of these great men.
I’m related to one of these. I continually wonder what he would say about the current state of affairs.
I’m related to one too. Perhaps they’d be proud of their lineage for still being patriots.
Interesting that Oceangate CEO Stockton Rush was named after two of these men.
thanks for this uplift. I was upset by all who seemed to pay the price and got the shaft.
It wasn't British Tea that the Patriots dumped during the Boston Tea Party. It was East India Company's (an awareness of the true enemy?).
EIC's fleet was twice the size of Britain's and had a monopoly on global trade for 200 years.
But wasn’t the EIC a British company?
Medici Family
What blows me away was the age of these guys. Some barely old enough to be considered men instead of boys. God Bless all of them. Makes today's young adults look like ( insert prefered term )
Oh how times have changed
What are you implying with this statement?
Has not President Trump and his family sacrificed in a similar way? How about those that stand by his side through thick and thin like Scavino, Lindell and many others? What about the whistleblowers? The J6 political prisoners? And the 10s of thousands willing to step into the breech when called upon.
You can take your doomer bullshit and fuck off. Disparaging Americans and the American spirit on this holiest of Patriotic holidays disgusts me.
These days youngsters are getting worse by the hour.
Lol do you think anything Mike Lindell has endured remotely compares to Francis Lewis? Or Scavino? If nothing else they’ve become MORE wealthy the past 6 years.
That's why they keep teaching "evolution" which contradicts creation.
We see evidence today of those in high power acting like the British. They imprison the Jan. 6 people, who walked peacefully into the Capitol Building (a building which I must say was built with taxpayer dollars, maintained with taxpayer dollars, and where members of Congress, supposedly voted into office by taxpayers, conduct business). They falsely accuse others of crimes which they themselves do, in order to make them financially destitute, lose their jobs and their families. They burn down homes and businesses via hired Antifa and BLM thugs, accuse others of racism, spy on citizens, present false narratives to the FISA Courts (who most likely knew the information was fictitious), and kill and maim all to keep control and power. We the people have not had our votes count for decades, until 2016 when so many voters turned out and voted for DJT. They were caught off guard and had not sufficiently rigged the election. That is HRC was so mad and refused to concede. She was told her Presidency was a done deal, just like in the past. As punishment to those who voted for Trump in 2016 and to prevent them from doing so again, Covid was created in 2017 with U.S. government backing in the Wuhan labs, released worldwide to spread to the U.S. and other countries in order to launch the Great Reset. Alternative drugs were suppressed and those who tried to inform were censored. Lockdowns and destruction of small businesses occurred and employers mandated Covid shots, which were known by Big Pharma, to prevent nothing: no protection against Covid, but most certainly death and harm. Voter cheating was encouraged, while those who wouldn’t take the Covid shot, were fired. Once again indebtedness, loss of family, increased drug and alcohol use, suicide and depression= financial implosion.
That was well stated!
wasn't this a Paul Harvey bit from years ago? sounds very much like his wording. still amazing to hear again. https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/fbcpompano/files/pages/resources/from-the-desk-of-dr-ron-harvey/What+Price+Freedom.pdf?1346265341
add this: https://rumble.com/vjf6w5-paul-harvey-radio-legend-on-our-lives-our-fortunes-our-sacred-honor.html
I read Rush Limbaugh’s father’s speech every year.
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/my-fathers-speech/
I just heard the Declaration of Independence being read in Colonial Williamsburg. A lot of patriots were nodding their heads at the words.
BTW, it is free admission on the 4th with fireworks. Never knew that!
thank you for posting this. heartbreaking, yet better than any speech a coach could give before a big game or even a rally speech by Trump.
We will try to win this with the least bloodshed & destruction of property, but if the enemy continues to push us, we will be forced to win by other means & cannot be intimidated or pushed back.
we fight for our children, our lives, our communities & the idea of freedom, so that the future remains free of slavery & dictatorship. I have no idea of any other goal that any person could fight & die for that goes beyond these. no terror group or dictator could withstand patriots who are fighting for these things.
give NO MAN power or authority over you. NO MAN has the earthly right to give or take freedoms & liberties from you.
thank you for all who have fought before us & are fighting today.
I pray when the time comes for me to stand up, that I don't cower. I pray for strength, courage & knowledge to know my enemy & defeat him.
Godspeed Patriots & Anons!
And today, as long as they have the latest I-phone, people are willing to let the government run roughshod over them.
They didn't all increase their fortunes by tens of millions through lobby money and insider trading.
What kind of men were the signers of the DoI? They were the 1%. Every single one of them. They were all educated land owners, descended from educated land owners, descended from the European Aristocracy.
We think of things like education or land ownership in terms of today, but back then, less than 1% of the population had the education they did. We think of people back then as "farmers," and compare that to farmers today. At the time "farmer" meant land owner. The TENENT farmers were the people who worked for the wealthy farmer that owned the land, who ran that "food corporation." It is the tenent farmer that is more akin to what we think of as a "farmer" today. It was those wealthy food corp. owners that were the "not super rich" members of the Founding Fathers, but they were still plenty wealthy (1%). They were also all Freemasons.
They signed the DoI because the Freemasons (the Illuminati) decided it was time to overthrow the system of Monarchs. Read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It lays out everything perfectly clearly. it is no coincidence that all the Monarchies of Europe were all overthrown at around the same time (over the next few decades), with all of the stragglers finally succumbing about a hundred and thirty years later in WWI.
The system that these One Percenters built out of the ashes of the DoI was not designed to be "free," on the contrary, it was designed specifically to create an overt slavery. If we weren't taught in school a selective history of the Constitution, if we weren't so brainwashed to believe that a Government has the Right to claim Sovereignty over it's citizenry on a whim, we would understand our slavery.
We believe that a Government is a real thing. It's not, rather, it is the people who have control of the Government that claim Sovereignty over our Jurisdiction. These people, our "government" are a Monarchy, or at least an Oligarchy, in all but name. Who had control of the Government at that time? Who were the Oligarchs? The same signers of the DoI that are suggested as "great sacrificers."
But we don't understand how our Government was really designed. We don't understand the Corporate nature (legal shield) of that system. We don't think that way. The reason we don't think that way is because the same Government that makes such false claims on our Jurisdiction is the same Government that runs our compulsory education system, which is specifically designed to indoctrinate the plebeians to "Trust the Present Government" if you live in a liberal town and "Trust the Past Government" if you live in a conservative one.
Was the design that we got the original intent of all of the signers of the DoI? I don't know, but the DoI didn't actually do anything except start a war. The Constitution is the actual (legal) foundation of the society we got. The DoI serves as a carrot that can be presented in place of the stick that is our Government. That is all that it does from an effective perspective.
While only a few of the DoI signers were also Constitution signers (this source says six), lauding these One Percenters who started the ball rolling with the intent to create a more hidden form of Rule from the previous Monarchical Rule, is exactly the type of brainwashing bullshit that got us here.
We overthrew the British government.
The one monarchy still in place to this day.
Modern Freemasonry is a cesspool; that doesn’t mean the founding of America was just another power grab conspiracy.
Perhaps you should revisit the Declaration of Independence. Of the people, by the people, for the people.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
These are not things the enemy wants for us. They want us to eat the bugs and live in the pod and own nothing.
I don’t know what education you received, but I graduated high school not that long ago. My history classes required us to read The Federalist Papers and debate them in depth. Yes, most of compulsory education is a shit show. But the shit show classes don’t even let you read these historical documents.
To claim the founding of America was just a power play is as bad as the 1692 project or whatever the hell that “muh founding with slavery” movement is.
"We overthrew the British government."
No, we didn't. We overthrew British colonial control of America. The British government itself is sadly still there
And it infiltrated our politics probably very soon after that.
If you want to be pedantic about wording, sure.
"We" didn't do anything. "We" were guided by the bankers to establish an "anti-Monarchy" to aid in ushering the One World Government system they had planned a few hundred years ago.
Until you understand what Controlled Opposition is, you can't appreciate how insidious and ubiquitous it is, nor how much it has been used to manipulate the world to the exact point we are at today.
You are correct. It doesn't mean that. It is all the evidence you find when you start digging in that suggests that it was.
The DoI is a lie. Not only was it a lie, it was an intentional lie (fraud). It has nothing to do with the government we got at the time. It has nothing to do with the government we currently have. It has no input whatsoever (read that link). My position does not come from a lack of study, but from the opposite.
The Federalist papers were created by people who were themselves controlled opposition. The people that wrote them were Cabal. The "argument" was a controlled opposition operation, or at least overall controlled by it.
Your view of the real enemy is too small. It is not so clear cut. What they want is to bring us into their ideal Utopia. This means guiding us through a Hegelian Dialectic. But not just any Hegelian Dialectic, but one that is running in reverse. In other words, they have the end goal, and they designed the Controlled Oppositions required for each step to bring us to that end.
Here is a brief description, with a nice picture, that helps explain the Hegelian Dialectic. Here is a long description.
On the contrary, it is essential for everyone to understand it if We The People are to have any chance of escaping The Matrix. I don't make the claim on it's own however, on the contrary, I can and will bring evidence to support the claim for days. To begin, start with my report here. At this point it only shows the creation of the singular Corporation that rules the world, and the singular body that runs it. The next section (which I am working on finalizing now) will explain what school, medicine and science are, who created them and how, and how they are used to control the world through controlled opposition.
But you cannot make an argument that people need to wake up and create a government “for the people,” and then claim that creating a document to create a government “for the people” is simply a ruse.
That’s just chasing your own argumentative tail, so to speak. The Articles of Confederation made some sense in that they were a response to the abuse of absolute power. The world was monarchical in nature until the Founding Fathers decided to try to form a new nation.
I’m not saying that they couldn’t have had bad eggs in the group that signed the Declaration, or even in the Constitutional Convention. I’m of the opinion that Alexander Hamilton was Washington’s Judas after the Revolutionary War. I am, however, never going to believe the whole thing was a deception from the very beginning.
I am quite literally related to one of the DoI signers. My family has never strayed from duty, nor patriotism. We have not sold anyone out, nor tried to pull a fast one on society. Perhaps other members have that we don’t know of, but our connection to the founding of this country has always created a sense of duty.
But to claim the DoI was a falsehood is reaching. To claim that it was all a lie because the AOC didn’t work, and we had to revamp with the Constitution is reaching.
I don't understand what you are saying here.
I am making the argument that the specific document we got in the DoI was a ruse, designed to be the carrot, the illusion of a statement of "freedom for all," to the stick, the reality of slavery for all, that was the actual government we got. Anything else you may be adding to that argument is not a part of what I am saying.
FTFY.
I am saying that my research suggests that the revolutions that were occurring all over the world at the time, that were moving their respective countries away from the Monarchies into "Democracies" (which is an identical word to Socialism) were planned events by the Cabal. This plan goes back really far, and the government we got was a part of it.
I'm not suggesting you "believe" it. I haven't really shown you any evidence yet. It is easier to do with specific questions, or as comes up in debate. Laying it all out at once is quite difficult to do. I suggest you read my report to get started. Again, that doesn't touch on this yet, but I suggest what is there will be quite enlightening as to the scope of the situation.
I am descended from many of America's Elite families, including the Roosevelts, the Lee's (Robert E. Lee), several of the first Governors of New England, and indeed, several people who created the U.S. Government, though I am several generations removed. Most multigenerational American's have similar ancestry. My Grandfather had one of "the names" that would be recognized as "Elite," though while successful, he was never that successful.
But my ancestry is irrelevant. Your ancestry is irrelevant. I am not my family. You are not your family. I am me, and you are you. You never know who a person really is or what they have done, period. Attempting to turn this into a "personal attack" does nothing but attempt to shove aside the argument in favor of your feelings. That has nothing to do with any investigation into the truth, and is only an attempt to distract from that endeavor.
This is exactly one of the numerous ways in which the populace is controlled by the Cabal.
Actually, there is substantial evidence to support the claim, and you have yet to address any of the points I have made that support it. In truth I haven't said much, but you haven't addressed even what I have said.
I never said anything about the AOC, thus, connecting it to "why" the Constitution had fuckery contained within it has nothing to do with my argument. As to the "reason" the AOC didn't work, it didn't work because it didn't lead to slavery of the people. THAT was why it was changed.
Just read the fifth amendment. It makes explicit in several ways that the US Govt. has the Authority to claim the Life, Liberty and Property of every Individual in the nation at the whim of the people who control the Govt, which is NOT, nor has it ever been, We The People.
Again, that is only ONE EXAMPLE of the fuckery, there are several others, but they all are in direct opposition to the flowery words of the DoI.
I cannot follow the fact you think the 5th Amendment is a slavery clause. I’m pretty sure nothing I say is going to convince you a trial of your peers and a society run by law and order is a good thing, and that anarchy is a great way for people to get screwed over very quickly with no chance at justice.
Also, family ties absolutely matter. See: the Bible.
Let's break it down.
To paraphrase, "no one will be held without due process, EXCEPT in actual service in time of war OR if the public is in danger." In other words, anyone in the military or militia WILL be subject to being held without due process, anytime there is an assessment of "public danger". Public danger is the same as "National Security," which is whatever those in charge believe it is at the time. It is subject to the whims of those in charge. In addition, we have been at war all but 16 years of this country, so the "national security" excuse isn't even required, but it's there if they want it to be. This says explicitly that every single person in the military has NO RIGHTS, and is completely subject to the whims of those in charge of the government.
Now rectify that with the draft. Military service at the time was not optional. Technically, that is still true, though there have been changes to the constitution (14th amendment specifically) that made everyone a slave, so this part of the fifth amendment is really redundant. I am making the case for it being there from the beginning however, so I am focusing on this.
Women didn't really have any rights under Constitutional law at the time (though they had some under common law). Men in the military had no rights, and military service for all men was not optional anytime the PTB willed it. That doesn't mean there weren't plenty of people believing they had rights that the government couldn't take away, but this provides a legal path to take them away on the whims of those in charge. That they only chose to exercise those rights sometimes* doesn't mean the legal path wasn't in there from the beginning.
*For example, George Washington forced (they had no choice) all of his men to be inoculated with small pox, and 3% of them died
To continue:
This says that a person WILL be deprived of life, liberty, or property if "due process of law" deems it necessary. OK, but who determines those laws? Who determines what "due process" is? Who determines what you can or can't do? Is it We The People? No, it is the people who run the Government.
"But "We The People" are the government!"
Are we?
In the beginning, the only people who could even vote for who would be America's King and court (we call them "President" and "Congress," but from a legal perspective, they are identical to King and Court), were wealthy land owners, AKA the Aristocracy. The Government was created and run by the Aristocrats from the beginning. The vast majority of people had no say at all. People who didn't own land (the majority of the populace), women, and slaves had no say whatsoever in who ran the country. And then everyone was subject to the whims of whichever elected Aristocrat got the most campaign money, and support from the media, both of which were controlled by the Cabal, then as now.
Importantly, the rest of We The People had no choice but to follow this system. You can't "opt out" of the Government if you think it's Tyrannical. There is no exit clause. It was designed that way on purpose. The people who signed the Treaty we call the Constitution signed for everyone. What about those who didn't want that? They had no say. They had no Rights. They were forced to be subjects to the Government, and their "due process." These things were, from the beginning, subject to the whims of the people in charge.
Whether you think people should be (whether they want to be or not) subjects to the Government (really, they are, legally speaking, subjects (vassals) to the people who run the government) is not the point. My point is the LEGAL STRUCTURE of the system, and the systems that enforce it through coercion (police, DOJ, etc.), gives people no choice.
This states explicitly that you do not own your property. The Government, or rather the people in charge of the government, can take your property any time they want. Your "ownership" of property is subject to the whims of those in charge. Who really owns your property if someone can take it away whenever they want, and there is nothing you can do about it?
I was talking about you taking it personally and tying it to your family. As if the fact that you have family ties to these people automatically means they couldn't have possibly done anything untoward. No, your family relationship has nothing to do with whether or not someone 250 years ago did something bad. I'm sorry, but that is not evidence for your argument. THAT is what I was saying.
If you are going to respond, please do so with specific reference to my arguments. You have taken me out of context several times in your response. You have to really try to understand what I am saying. These concepts are not trivial, and we have been trained to ignore the arguments I am presenting. That doesn't mean I want you to agree with me. I just want you to actually address what I am saying, and not follow your training and ignore the key points.
This suggests you have no idea what the word "anarchy" means. That false understanding is training that everyone receives. The last thing the PTB want people to really understand is "anarchy" because then they lose power. The assumptions in your sentence are completely incorrect. That is a larger discussion however.
Some of the members were wealthy, but not all were born into wealth. Many built their own businesses and made their wealth. The very system of British rule insured their standing and their position. These men signed a document declaring Independence (revolt) from the British. This was an act of high treason. They placed their lives and future of their families at risk for what? To make more money? Own more land? Continue to be the evil 1% that live a life of luxury and enslave their fellow man? No to all of these. They believed in self determination and wanted the new world to be completely different from the old world. They wanted the leaders of this new country to be voted into office by the will of the people. They wanted justice, human rights and freedom to determine their own fate. The chances of success were horrible, the British empire ruled over a third of the known world, they had actual professional armies and the most powerful Naval force in the world. We had none of that and a substantial portion of our own people that were loyalists to the British crown. We didn't have enough weapons, very few formally trained military people and very little gold and silver. Most Americans were uneducated and lived meager lives, but they joined the fight and were led by many of the men that signed the DoI. Your bias against wealthy people is a surefire sign of socialist/communist brainwashing. You have assumed that these men gained wealth through exploiting others. That is as ignorant as it gets. Samuel Huntington started out as an apprentice to a cooper, Ben Franklin started out as an apprentice as well, Josiah Bartlett was a physician (His father was a shoemaker), Matthew Thornton was also a physician (his parents immigrated to America when he was 4 from Ireland), William Whipple was a seaman on a vessel before he made Captain, he and his brother later started their own company, John Adams was born to a farmer/shoemaker, Sam Adams inherited a brewery, which ended up failing, Elbridge Gerry was the 3rd of 12 children. His father owned a ship and was involved in trade, John Hancock was orphaned as a young boy and adopted by his uncle that was wealthy and had a shipping company, Robert Paine was a clergyman (Preacher)that changed careers, William Ellery was the son of a merchant, he graduated Harvard at the age of 15, Stephen Hopkins grew up on a small farm with no formal education, he was taught by his parents and grandfather, Samuel Huntington was raised in a small farm in Connecticut, he had no formal education but taught himself and borrowed books to learn law and became a lawyer, Roger Sherman had little formal education, but became a self made man and through hard work became successful, William Williams was the son of a preacher, he served as a soldier in the French-Indian war and then came back and eatablished a business, Oliver Wolcott was raised in a frontier village with no formal education, he was apprenticed to a weaver, Lewis Morris was a descendent of wealth, as he inherited his father's fortune, he is quoted as saying, "damn the consequences, give me the pen" when he signed, Francis Lewis was the son of a Preacher and orphaned at 5, he was taken in by his aunt who had some means and made sure to have him educated, he was born in Wales and eventually moved to New York and Philadelphia (not wealthy), but he made his fortune as a merchant, Phillip Livingston did come from a wealthy family and made his own fortune as a merchant, William Floyd inherited a prosperous farm and managed it well, he had little formal education, but learned from friends and acquaintances he was a wealthy landowner, Abraham Clark was a self taught lawyer that did not come from a wealthy family he was born on a small farm, he was called "the poor man's lawyer" because he gave free legal advice to small farmers about land disputes, Francis Hopkinson was born to a wealthy Philadelphia family and became a lawyer and a judge, John Witherspoon was a clergyman and the only one to sign the DoI, John Hart lived and worked on his small family farm his entire life, he bought more land and became a succesful farmer, Richard Stockton was a Judge, he was born to a wealthy family and inherited land and wealth, he was also imprisoned, starved and tortured for signing. The list goes on and on, most made their own fortunes, and most were self educated and got there on their own merits. If this is your definition of the 1%, then we have very different ideas about what 1% means. These are not the spoiled aristocrats and evil men that gained success by subjugating their fellow man. You can do a little research on your own to finish the list of the signer's of the DoI, but your gross assumptions and unfounded opinions are shallow and unresearched. Good day to you.
Every time I have investigated someone who "made their own wealth" or were "born of moderate means" it turns out to be a fabrication. The key is to look at education. No one in the general populace at the time had anything but a primary education, and most not even that (home schooled for reading and writing at best), yet all of the movers and shakers throughout history had at minimum a secondary education, most having attended university. As far as I can tell, “humble beginnings” is complete and total bullshit, or at least within perspective, massively skewed toward the top of the totem pole, where the person with "humble beginnings" was really in the top 10% or so of society, and the real humble people, the rest of the 90%, were completely ignored in the comparison.
For a little look at the evidence, look at this link (page 84). It starts in 1870, by which time enrollment had massively increased from 100-150 years earlier (the time period we are talking about). It shows that only 1.3% of the population went to tertiary school (college) in 1870. I can't find the secondary school link atm (what we call "high school"), but it is similar. Education was only for the very wealthy, even High School.
Only rich people had secondary or tertiary education. This is the key to resolving the lies. Once you understand that, everything else makes sense. Sometimes investigating their scholastic career can even help trace a persons real lineage and associations. NO ONE made it to the First Continental Congress without those associations, made through wealth and education, which meant their parents had enough money to send them to school, AKA, the 1%.
As for the rest of your response, if you separate it into paragraphs I will respond to it. It is too hard to read as is. If you don't know, to create a paragraph you have to double "enter," not single "enter." It's a weird quirk, but there it is.
There are quite a large number of home educated and self educated men that have quite the documentation to back it up. Ben Franklin is arguably the most well known. Most of the men on the list did go to and graduate a university, it least all the lawyers did, except for Abraham Clark who was self taught and apparently not accepted into the Bar Assoc. However some did not and made their fortunes on their own without having family money. Most northern farmers had relatively small farms. There are a few large plantation owners, but predominately the large plantations were in the South East.
Let's take a look at Franklin as an example of a "false history" whereby the vast majority of the population is left out of the comparison, and we measure things in terms of todays metrics.
His maternal Grandfather was Peter Folger. Mr. Folger was:
What does this mean? He was the direct personal assistant of Thomas Mayhew, who was the first Governor of the colony. Mr. Mayhew couldn't have been a colonizer without a charter. You can't get a charter without lots of money, thus Mr. Folger was at least directly associated with Money before even setting foot in America. While it doesn't itself point directly to lots of money for Mr. Folger, it points to direct connections to money, which means opportunities not afforded to 99% of the population.
In addition, You can't be a missionary without formal education in the Church. You can't be a school teacher without a formal education. What does that point to? Money.
BF’s father, Josiah Franklin was:
A “businessman” meant owner of a business. Not many people owned businesses in New England, rather it was a position of at least some privilege. I can’t find any specifics on his holdings in the five minutes I spent investigating, but this is far from “humble.”
Even better he was a tithingman. A tithingman was:
A tithing is a “civil parish.” So a township basically. He was the head of the legal and administrative system of the town. This again is a position of privilege and power not many had (presumably one per town).
BF himself did go to school, more than the vast majority of people anyways. Britannica says:
He had a year of formal education. Another year with a private teacher (which is generally very expensive, and something almost no one on the planet had access to except the aristocracy) and became an apprentice to his brother, a printer, which is itself a position requiring substantial education (printer, not necessarily apprentice), and which gives access to books most people would never dream of having access to.
All of these things add up to more than the average person, much more. He had both a lineage of at least reasonable wealth, and opportunities afforded to almost no one. Most people don’t appreciate that the vast majority of people other than those who became the leaders, came over here as indentured servants, or were born here as 10th sons of 10th sons of 10th sons whose parents may have had opportunities, but never made anything of themselves, thus their children had no opportunities available to them. They were too far removed from the lineage and inheritance. Benjamin was similar in that he was from a large family, but he was only one generation removed (his father had sufficient wealth and power), thus he still had plenty of opportunities that most didn’t have. Yes, he was a member of the “working class,” but he started near the top of that heap, and took advantage of opportunities that most never had a chance at.
As for him being Cabal, in 2016 the basement in his home was excavated:
I’m not sure if you are completely aware of the actions of the Cabal, and their tendency to sacrifice children in magic ritual, but this is a telltale sign of that activity.
This by itself is not sufficient, but there is SO MUCH MORE of Franklin’s actions that strongly support his being a member of the Cabal, through his actions. That requires a great deal of dsicussion however, but his actions in France, in America, and Britain all point to “Cabal agent” when measuring the result of those actions, if not the “stated intent” of them. As an example, BF was the inspiration for Thomas Malthus’ work on Population Control, the Cabal agenda that currently rules the world.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
I read the article about Craven street. Did you read the rest of the article? They pretty much said it wasn't him, but the husband of the land lady that was an early anatomist (that was a murky undertaking during that time).
"Benjamin Franklin was a lot of things: author, politician, scientist, diplomat, freemason and statesman. But it turns out, he definitely wasn't a murderer.
"Further investigation showed some of the bones had been sawn through; others bore scalpel scars; a skull showed drill holes probably made by a trepanning device.
This evidence pointed Franklin's close friend, William Hewson, an early anatomist, who had been working in secret at the Franklin's home at that time".
"Hewson had been studying anatomy under Scottish scientists and surgeons, the Hunter brothers. Hewson famously showed how blood passed through the lymphatic system, by using mercury and a turtle. The discovery attracted the attention of scientist Ben Franklin, and the pair became friends.
Anatomy was still a murky subject at the time: poking around in dead bodies had been outlawed throughout the Middle Ages into the 1600s.
The bones from the basement; William Hewson, born 1739. By the 1700s, it was growing as a subject for study, but it was still only legal to dissect the cadavers of convicted and executed murderers: and the problem was, there weren't enough bodies to go round.
Body snatchers and 'resurrectionists' thrived, stealing dead bodies and selling them to the scientists.
Location, location, location It seems 36 Craven Street was the perfect place for an anatomy school: Hewson was married to the landlady's daughter; the tenant, Ben Franklin, was a trusted friend; and the house lay between two sources of material.
Resurrectionists could smuggle bodies from graveyards via the Thames-side wharf at the end of the street, or snaffle unfortunate cadavers from the gallows at the other.
The Friends of Benjamin Franklin House suggest that Hewson probably used bodies from 'resurrectionists – bodysnatchers who shipped their wares along the Thames under cover of night.'
Not only were uncertified dissections illegal, the means by which Hewson gained his materials were also against the law; disposing of these bones somewhere other than the basement would have risked being prosecuted for illegal dissection and possible grave robbing. Was Benjamin Franklin aware of all the dodgy dealings going on in his basement? Was the Founding Father involved?
There's evidence Franklin stayed elsewhere in the same area of London for a period, possibly while Hewson was living at the property in his place."
As far as Josiah Franklin goes:
Josiah Franklin Sr. (December 23, 1657 – January 16, 1745) was an English businessman and the father of Benjamin Franklin. Born in the village of Ecton, Northamptonshire, England, Josiah was the ninth child of blacksmith Thomas Franklin (b. 1598), and his first wife, Jane White. Thomas was the son of Henry Franckline (b. 1573) and Agnes Joanes. Thomas Franklin remarried and had more children. Josiah Franklin worked as a fabric dyer in Ecton. Franklin immigrated to the American colonies in 1682. He married twice and had 17 children: ten boys and seven girls. In Boston, he was a member of the Congregational Old South Church where he served as a tithingman.
His business was a tallow chandler/soap boiler. He basically was a candle maker. As far as a tithingman. Goes, that was in England and it was similar to a constable, however by the 1600's in America it has a different meaning:
"In early New England, many churches appointed a “tithing man” who carried around a long rod with a knob at the end (the other end had a fox or hare’s tail for gentler use on the women-folk) and whose job was to prevent disorderly conduct during service or to awaken the sleeping."
According to 1913 Webster's dictionary:
tithingman (plural tithingmen)
*(law, historical) The chief of a tithing. quotations ▼ *(obsolete) A ruler or leader of ten men; a decurion. *(UK, law) A peace officer; an underconstable. *(US, Maryland and New England dialect, historical) A parish officer elected annually to preserve good order in the church during divine service, to make complaint of any disorderly conduct, and to enforce the observance of the Sabbath. *A tithe proctor: a collector of tithes.
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. There is ALWAYS such a "plausible story" to cover the implications when something like this pops up. For Pizzagate, for example, they "debunked" it by saying "there was no basement" at Comet Pizza, completely ignoring the fact that James Alifantis actually posted about the basement at Comet Pizza on Twitter. But of course no one checks those things, so the plausible story becomes the "official truth". It helps that the plausible story always aligns with what people want to believe.
As I said, the evidence of this particular event wasn't sufficient, but that was not what I base my assessment of Franklin on, rather it is a ton of other stuff that he did that advanced the agenda of the Cabal. If you think the "matter is solved" however, you have much to learn about the complicity of the media.
Unless you understand the monopoly of the media, you can't appreciate the fuckery that lay therein. The Londonist, where the article was published, is very much a main stream site, which means 100% owned by the Cabal. The author, Zoe Craig has been an editor for many other main stream sites, including the BBC. This makes her a very possible MI6 agent. Not necessarily of course, and I'm certainly not trying to make an argument for that with such little evidence, but once you understand the complicity of the media, and how many "editors" especially are in fact agents of Intelligence, you can appreciate that everything is suspect. I am only trying to suggest your conclusion is far from certain, I am not saying "FB was a child murderer." But he most certainly might have been, and this is evidence that supports that conclusion.
As for the rest of your thing, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Everything I said stands. His father held a position of power and authority. He came from wealth, his schooling, such as it was, cost money most did not have. Did he come from "great wealth?" No, I never said he did. But the average person in America made a few cents an hour in the 1700s (in the early 1800s it was ~0.05c per hour, I'm not sure about the century before). Secondary or Tertiary school cost $600 per year according to the previous source (secondary school was actually more expensive, but easier to get into if you had the money). Assuming a 60 hour work week, and that it was the same in the 1700s as the early 1800s, the average yearly wage was $150 per year. You would have needed to make about 10 times the average to have such “disposable” money to send your child to high school or college, and that’s just for one kid. Josiah Franklin had a plethora of rugrats, and he still had the money to pay for a private teacher for BF.
This discrepancy between average income and the cost of paying a college (or at least high school) educated person to teach your child, teachers who were themselves used to a reasonable level of wealth, is why only a couple percent of children in the 1700s had ANY formal schooling at all, and less than 1% had "private teachers."
Again, the problem people have is that they associate these things with TODAYs standards. For example, they see “minister” and think of someone “doing God’s work.” Yet being a minister at that time was ALWAYS a position of power. The ministers were ALWAYS wealthy. Even just being a leading member of the Church (such as Josiah Franklin) was ALWAYS a position of power in the community. In this case being a tithesman was more than just a "ruler of ten men" since that is a completely different context. It was a leader of the legal and administrative system. I'm not sure exactly what that means, perhaps a judge and/or accountant? Treasurer and Secretary?
As an example of important context of the times, both of those positions (treasurer and secretary) were positions of great power in the community. Indeed, “secretary” was sometimes more powerful of a position than “president” in some corporations and/or organizations. Things like “superintendent” meant the highest position one can have in some settings, and yet, such words such as secretary, superintendent, or treasurer mean very little today. Context is everything. You have to understand the times to understand the power associated with the positions being named.
As for "his business was a "tallow chandler/soap boiler" that is meaningless. Rockefeller dug sludge out of the ground and was the richest man on the planet (not really, but people thought he was). Elias Dodge made shoes, but had hundreds of employees and made more women's shoes than anyone else in the world. Success is not about the business, but about the scale of the business. Without knowing say, how many employees he had, or how many shops he had, how much he exported, etc., there is no way to even begin to judge the measure of his wealth.
At the least he was a community leader, which is NOT an "average" father, which puts a direct lie to the idea that "Franklin was a self-made man." By all accounts Franklin did take advantage of the opportunities that were available to him. In that sense he was "self-made" as in, he could have failed in his endeavors, and he did not. The point I am making is, he had FAR MORE opportunities than the vast majority of the people on the planet, or in America, or in New England. The idea that BF came from "humble beginnings" is complete and total bullshit by all available evidence if you understand the context of the time period.
All these things are possible, but Josiah Franklin was not a community leader. He was a Tithingman of New England where the title meant something very different from the old english meaning. It specifically states that he was a guy that was elected to walk around church with a rod with a knob on the end which he would use to wake people up during sermons. He was not a constable.
As for apprenticeships, I had understood that there was some difficulty with the concept, but had not studied it in depth. Here is a good article.
https://www3.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/apprenti.html
Apprenticeships were not typically of the wealthy elite. They were more for people with some means, but not the rich. Universities and colleges were primarily for religious studies.
By your assessment of the time period, every single business owner and every owner with land was the 1%. I don't think that is accurate. The system in the Americas was not Peasant and Feudal ruler. We didn't have that setup here. Many people were not wealthy, but the reasons people came here was to make opportunities that were not available in the old world. Overall the colonies were considered to be a backwater colony by Britain, however there was substantial opportunity to be had for those with intelligence, talent, hard work or opportunity. The super wealthy elite did not come to the colonies to live, it was unfashionable. People lived here to make a new life and hopefully find their fortunes. Most of the people that moved here did so for the opportunity. Some were from old wealthy families that were no longer wealthy, but mostly were regular people that had a skill or created their own opportunities when they got here. In summation, the colonies were not some grandiose resort for the wealthy elite. The place was dirty, unrefined, filled with illness and danger. Indian attacks were still occurring and people that lived in the border villages and towns still had raids. The French Indian war was in the 1750's and lasted over a decade.
I just was searching to see how much Yale, Harvard, William and Mary, etc cost in the 1700's. Apparently the information is somewhat sparse, but what I did find was a paper that some professor wrote that the tuition costs were free. The room and board were not, materials like paper and quills/ink were also not provided, these were required of the students. The paper goes on to say that most people could not afford to spare a farm worker (son) to go to university and the cost to provide materials would be shouldered by the student or the family. It also notes that these universities were theological and had a large portion of their costs provided by donations to the schools via church donations. While it would have been far cheaper to attend college back then, it would require some source of funding for living expenses. This means that you didn't have to be rich to send a son to school, it did require you to have "disposable" income.
The cost for college was high, relative to average income, and there were tuition costs, at least according to other sources, but that was not the real cost of college. The cost was what it took to get in. From that source (sorry, its a terribly anti-"white privilege" piece, but I am more interested in the statements of facts than the agenda of the author).
It doesn't matter how much it costs if you can't get in unless the Rulership of the school (part of the Aristocracy/Cabal) "approves" of you AND your family name. Plus you have to have already attended secondary school, which WAS expensive, or have had a private tutor to teach you all the Greek, Latin, math, science, etc. you needed to get in to school.
NO ONE had disposable income except the wealthy. Not necessarily the 1%, but top 10-20% at least.
Top 10-20% is not "humble" by any measure except when ignoring the other 80-90%.
My research suggests there was never a point in our history (the history that we know about) where the Cabal, or their predecessors, didn't rule us by the creation of belief, through controlled opposition. My research has traced the same group doing the same thing in the same way all the way back to the Code of Hammurabi. The Code itself is a very enlightening read, I highly recommend it.
The Code of Hammurabi shows clearly how "Law" is constructed to fabricate a new reality. It also shows how society is separated into "classes" (a separation and control structure that never changed, it just became more hidden in the structure). The most interesting thing to realize about the Code is what is left out. There are no laws for the Priest class. That is how it always was, for millennia. And there are ties between the Priest class of ancient Sumer, and the Priest class of Jews, the Priest class of Catholics, and even the Priest class of Islam. All of which religions were created by the same group of people, none of which had rules for the upper echelons of that hierarchy. They were above the law, by Divine will. "Divine Right of Kings," e.g., given by the Church, who was the ultimate Authority. The Church could take away or grant the power of a King. The reverse was not true. This is how the world has always worked.
Ok I remember where I saw that number:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf
Comey's name appears as Corney 56 times in the Durham report.
Could be nothing, could be something.
Do you believe in coincidences?
u/#q3673
I complain of sufferings received anonymously. I cry for those men seeing how they sacrificed all and by doing so 56 men made a huuuge difference. They knew if they weren't free life wouldn't be worth living the way they wanted to. Trump knows it too.
Paul Harvey about this very thing.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KYKHTyENEw
The military is the only way. They will resolve this. More bluntly put. We are the military! We must use our writings, our speach, our actions, and if it resolves to it, our second amendment. We are the patriots. We are our military. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Wow thank you for this post
Excellent post. TU
These AIN'T FOR SALE !
Thank you.
so nobody helped the patriots after they gave their fortunes and lives for their country?
Jeff Jacoby wrote a column about the signers in 2000. His July 3rd column.
It was so good that Hillary pressured the Boston Globe and he got suspended until after the election.
It was much better than this one.
Plus the column has been removed from the archives. I'm sure it could be found. I found it about 10-15 years ago.
White Privilege. LOL
Powerful post! Can't wait for the day when REAL history is taught!
We owe them everything! God Bless these Patriots!
We are making them now, as we speak---