By: James Still
To explain the Articles of Association, Congress included an address to the nation: “To the INHABITANTS of the COLONIES… In every Case of Opposition by a People to their Rulers, or of one State to another, duty to Almighty God, the Creator of all, requires that a true and impartial Judgment be formed of the Measures leading to such Opposition… that neither Affection on the one hand, nor Resentment on the other, being permitted to give a wrong bias to Reason, it may be enabled to take a dispassionate view of all Circumstances, and to settle the public Conduct on the solid Foundations of Wisdom and Justice…
Though the State of these Colonies would certainly justify other Measures than we have advised… we have chosen a Method of opposition, that does not preclude a hearty Reconciliation with our Fellow-Citizens, on the other side of the Atlantic. We deeply deplore the urgent Necessity, that presses us to an immediate interruption of Commerce, that may prove injurious to them. We trust they will acquit us of any unkind Intentions towards them, by reflecting, that… we are contending for Freedom, so often contended for by our Ancestors…
Your own Salvation, and that of your Posterity, now depends upon yourselves. You have already shown that you entertain a proper Sense of the Blessings you are striving to retain. Against the temporary Inconveniencies you may suffer from a Stoppage of Trade, you will weigh in the opposite Balance, the endless Miseries you and your Descendants must endure, from an established arbitrary Power…
Above all Things, we earnestly entreat you, with Devotion of Spirit, penitence of Heart, and amendment of Life, to humble yourselves and implore the Favor of Almighty God: and we fervently beseech his Divine Goodness, to take you into his gracious Protection.” Journals of Congress, October 21, 1774
James Still, JamesStill@RetraceOurSteps.com
“In making our choice of these distressing difficulties, we prefer the Course dictated by Honesty, and a Regard for the Welfare of our Country.” Journals of Congress,
October 21, 1774
“… if the peaceable Mode of Opposition recommended by us be broken and rendered ineffectual… you must inevitably be reduced to chose, either a more dangerous Contest, or a final, ruinous, and infamous submission…” Journals of Congress, October 21, 1774
BY: JAMES STILL
Encouraged by the Suffolk Resolves, the First Continental Congress passed the Articles of Association in hopes that a boycott of British goods would encourage a redress of grievances and repeal of the Intolerable Acts. Abraham Lincoln noted the significance of this moment: “The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.” Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861
“WE, his majesty’s most loyal subjects, the delegates of the several colonies… avowing our allegiance to his majesty, our affection and regard for our fellow-subjects in Great-Britain and elsewhere, affected with the deepest anxiety, and most alarming apprehensions, at those grievances and distresses, with which his Majesty’s American subjects are oppressed; and having taken under our most serious deliberation, the state of the whole continent, find, that the present unhappy situation of our affairs is occasioned by a ruinous system of colony administration, adopted by the British ministry about the year 1763…
To obtain redress of these grievances, which threaten destruction to the lives liberty, and property of his majesty’s subjects, in North-America, we are of opinion, that a non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation agreement, faithfully adhered to, will prove the most speedy, effectual, and peaceable measure: And, therefore, we do, for ourselves, and the inhabitants of the several colonies, whom we represent, firmly agree and associate, under the sacred ties of virtue, honor and love of our country…
And we do solemnly bind ourselves and our constituents, under the ties aforesaid, to adhere to this association, until such parts of the several acts of parliament… are repealed.” Journals of Congress, Oct 20, 1774
James Still, JamesStill@RetraceOurSteps.com
“We will in our several Stations encourage Frugality, Economy, and Industry, and promote Agriculture, Arts [Trades] and the manufactures of this Country…” Journals of Congress, Oct 20, 1774
We The People-Longview January Monthly Meeting
Monday, January 5, 2015
7:00 to 8:30 p.m.
Longview First Church of The Nazarene
2601 H.G. Mosley Pkwy., Longview
STATE REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON
TOPIC: Upcoming 2015 Texas Legislative Session
U.S. House Representative Louie Gohmert votes “NO” on bill HR5759 which he co-sponsored
WATCH VIDEO BELOW of Rep. Louie Gohmert on the House Floor explaining why he had to vote against HR5759.
The immigration bill that the House passed yesterday would nullify Obama’s executive action on immigration, but it was criticized by many Republicans because it’s a bill the Senate doesn’t have to take up, and in fact, the Senate will not consider it. Many Republicans are still hoping that the House takes up a must-pass spending bill next week that prevents the administration from implementing Obama’s immigration plan.
But Republicans like Gohmert were also critical of the substance of the bill. Gohmert noted that the bill was re-written in the House Rules Committee to say the president cannot exempt whole classes of people from immigration laws, except if there are “humanitarian purposes where the aliens are at imminent risk of serious bodily harm or death.”
Gohmert said he cosponsored the original bill, but that he could not support this change. He said the exception language might even be used by Obama to justify Obama’s recent action if it ever became law.
“The bill that I was willing to cosponsor completely changed in the addition of that exception,” he said.
Louie Gohmert says GOP leaders abused House procedures to quickly pass flawed defense, immigration bills
Read more here…
FROM INSTITUTE FOR POLICY INNOVATION:
Texas Is Getting Redder, Not Bluer
In a new op-ed in Rare, IPI’s Dr. Merrill Matthews writes:
Oops! It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Haven’t the media and liberal-pundits been assuring us that Texas was on an inevitable march to blue statedom? Now Texas voters go and make them out to be a bunch of liars.
Democrats and liberal donors apparently believed the blue-Texas dream so strongly that they have been pumping millions of dollars into Battleground Texas, an organization founded by Obama campaign alumni that carpetbagged into the Lone Star State last year.
Surely, the media hyperventilated, this would be the end of red Texas.
Texas voters have elected the state’s most conservative slate of candidates yet, even with a growing Hispanic population.
The liberal narrative went like this: the Hispanic population in Texas is growing. It currently represents about 38 percent of the Texas population and is predicted to reach 43 percent in a decade. Hispanics tend to vote more Democratic, which means that Texas will turn purple and then blue within the relatively near future.
Here’s the problem with that scenario: The Texas Hispanic population has been growing for decades. In 1990 it was about 26 percent of the population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And yet in 1990, Democrats controlled the Texas House and Senate and most major statewide elected offices. And Democrat Ann Richards won the governor’s election that year, taking office in 1991.
Today, Hispanics make up 38 percent of the state and a Democrat cannot get elected statewide for love or money (and there is a lot of the latter). You’d think that if Hispanics were turning the state blue—or would in the near future—we’d see some evidence of it now.
Democrats ran what they thought was their dream team: State Sen. Wendy Davis, an articulate female with statewide name recognition who became the face of pro-choice Democrats, ran for the governor’s mansion. And State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, a well-respected Hispanic female, ran for the lieutenant governor’s position, which in Texas is considered the real power behind the (governor’s) throne.
Democrats went into those races arguing they had a good chance. Their story changed as the election got closer, saying that as long as their dream team lost by less than double digits, it would be a clear sign of Democratic ascendency. But the Dallas Morning News cited Democrats on election day saying that if they lost by double digits it would be a devastating blow to their hopes for takeover. Both candidates lost by 20 points.
And while both won the Hispanic vote, the Dallas Morning News says Davis fell short with both Hispanics and women. Abbott won 44 percent of the Hispanic vote.
As Texas political commentator Wayne Thorburn pointed out in Politico, Texas Hispanics assimilate, intermarry with whites—Abbott married a Hispanic—and move to the overwhelmingly red suburbs. Plus they get jobs and want to keep their taxes low, and they get older. All of those factors tend to change how people vote.
But what about the women’s vote? Didn’t they buy that GOP “war on women” screed? Cari L. Christman, writing for the Texas Insider, explains why Texas women are turning away from Democrats. She notes that, “Only 360,473 women voted in this year’s Democratic primary, a dramatic drop from the 1.5 million who voted in 2008.”
Of all the Democrats’ dashed dreams on election night, one of the biggest disappointments had to be Texas. They had boots on the ground, lots of money, a believable narrative, great candidates and big hopes for a blue future—and Texas got even redder.
After the historic Republican landslide on election night, no one had more reason to smile than Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).
Why? Because it wasn’t just Democrats attacking him for his unbending stance on Obamacare, which lead to a temporary government shutdown. Instead, it was the Republican Party establishment, as they were concerned about the immediate poll numbers during the shutdown which could have harmed Republicans for years.
They were wrong, and Ted Cruz was very, very right.
Watch (above) as Cruz gave an exciting speech in Austin, Texas this week to explain why – with Republicans in charge of the Senate – the “era of Obama’s lawlessness is over.”
MONDAY, OCTOBER 6TH MONTHLY MEETING
GUEST SPEAKER: JOANN FLEMING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF GRASSROOTS AMERICAN WE THE PEOPLE IN TYLER (GAWTP.COM)
WATCH ART’S ANGLE FOR CURRENT EVENTS AND HOT POLITICAL TOPICS:
FOR A COMPLETE LISTING OF TEXAS ELECTION RESULTS, CLICK ON LINK BELOW:
By Phyllis Schlafly
October 29, 2014
Control of the U.S. Senate is up for grabs on November 4, and illegal voters may tip the balance. Estimates are that more than 14 percent of non-citizens were registered to vote in the elections of 2008 and 2010, and that could now easily exceed the margin of victory in many tight Senate races.
Democrats typically win more than 80 percent of the votes cast by non-citizens, so votes cast by non-citizens produce a net bonanza of additional votes for Democrats. Democrat Al Franken won a Republican U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota by a margin of only 312 votes in 2008, and with the immense power of incumbency he is expected to cruise to reelection this time.
New non-partisan research by professors at Old Dominion University uncovered the shocking amount of voting by non-citizens, as published by the Washington Post last Friday. Their work did not choose sides in the debate over whether non-citizens should be allowed to vote, which Congress has already answered in the negative by sensibly limiting voting in federal elections to only American citizens.
This study concluded that voter ID alone will not eliminate voting by non-citizens, because voter ID does not require proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate. But that loophole is easily closed by requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, just as one must show proof of citizenship in order to obtain a passport.
Several states enacted common-sense provisions in order to strengthen voter integrity in this year’s election. The U.S. Supreme Court denied an attempt to block voter ID from going into effect in Texas, so at least the Lone Star State will be able to limit mischief at their polls in this election.
Other states are not so fortunate. Wisconsin passed a voter ID law that was upheld by the Seventh Circuit, but the U.S. Supreme Court then blocked that good law from going into effect this November.
Continue reading “Eagle Forum: Illegal Voters May Decide Fate of Senate”
By: James Still
With British oppression escalating, leaders within Suffolk County, Massachusetts, approved nineteen resolutions. The Resolutions were carried to Philadelphia and endorsed by the Continental Congress.
“… the most sacred obligations are upon us to transmit [this new World]… unfettered by power, unclogged with shackles, to our innocent and beloved offspring. …if we arrest the hand which would ransack our pockets… if we successfully resist that unparalleled usurpation of unconstitutional power… posterity will acknowledge that virtue which preserved them free and happy… Therefore, we have resolved…
2. That it is an indispensable duty which we owe to God, our country, ourselves and posterity, by all lawful ways and means in our power to maintain, defend and preserve those civil and religious rights and liberties, for which many of our fathers fought, bled and died, and to hand them down entire to future generations…
11. … for the honor, defense and security of this county and province, advise… persons, be elected in each town as officers in the militia… and that the inhabitants of those towns and districts, who are qualified, do use their utmost diligence to acquaint themselves with the art of war…
15. … it is incumbent on us to encourage arts [trades] and manufactures amongst us, by all means in our power…
18. … we would heartily recommend to all persons of this community, not to engage in any routs, riots, or licentious attacks upon the properties of any person whatsoever… our conduct shall be such as to merit the approbation of the wise, and the admiration of the brave and free of every age and of every country.” Journals of Congress, September 17, 1774
James Still, JamesStill@RetraceOurSteps.com
“Last Friday Mr. [Paul] Revere brought us the spirited and patriotic Resolves of your County of Suffolk. We laid them before the Congress. They were read with great applause…” Samuel Adams, Letter to Charles Chauncy, September 19, 1774
“This was one of the happiest Days of my Life. In Congress We had generous, noble Sentiments, and manly Eloquence. This Day convinced me that America will support the Massachusetts or perish with her.” John Adams, Entry in Diary, September 17, 1774