U.S. Flags Online

Inauguration On-Line

Want to watch the inauguration online? Check out these web sites:http://www.uspolitics.america.gov/uspolitics/government/inauguration.html is sponsored by the U.S. State Department and http://www.pic2009.org is sponsored by the Presidential Inaugural Committee.

The Presidential Oath of Office: A 34-Word Promise
The Presidential Oath of Office is found in the United States Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8) and simply reads:

I do solemnly swear [or affirm] I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Inauguration Day Official Scheduled Events
The United States Marine Band, the San Francisco Boys Chorus and the San Francisco Girls Chorus perform
Sen. Dianne Feinstein gives the Call to Order and Welcoming Remarks
Rev. Rick Warren gives the Invocation
Aretha Franklin performs
Vice President-Elect Joseph Biden is sworn into office
John Williams conducts Itzhak Perlman, on the violin and Yo-Yo Ma on the cello
President-Elect Barack Obama takes the Oath of Office
Poet Elizabeth Alexander reads her inaugural poem (see Elizabeth Alexander below)
Civil Rights leader, Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, gives the Benediction
The United States Navy Band “Sea Chanters” sings the National Anthem

Scheduled performers include:
Beyoncé, Mary J. Blige, Garth Brooks, Sheryl Crow, Herbie Hancock, Jon Bon Jovi, John Mellencamp, Bruce Springsteen, James Taylor, U2, Usher and Stevie Wonder.

For more details and a complete list of official inaugural events, go to:

http://www.inauguration.dc.gov/events.

The Inaugural Poet: Elizabeth Alexander
Inaugural Poet Elizabeth Alexander was born in Harlem in 1962 but raised in D.C. She is a teacher with degrees from Yale and the University of Pennsylvania. As a poet, she has been published pretty much everywhere from the Kenyon Review, The Paris Review, The Village Voice, and The Washington Post. Her work has won awards from the National Endowment for the Arts as well as been nominated for a Pulitzer.

Ars Poetica #100: I Believe
by Elizabeth Alexander

Poetry, I tell my students,
is idiosyncratic. Poetry

is where we are ourselves,
(though Sterling Brown said

“Every ‘I’ is a dramatic ‘I’”)
digging in the clam flats

for the shell that snaps,
emptying the proverbial pocketbook.

Poetry is what you find
in the dirt in the corner,

overhear on the bus, God
in the details, the only way

to get from here to there.
Poetry (and now my voice is rising)

is not all love, love, love,
and I’m sorry the dog died.

Poetry (here I hear myself loudest)
is the human voice,

and are we not of interest to each other?

Bookmark this post:

The dog days of August roared in Tennessee in 1920!

August 18, 1920

Seventy years after the first National Women’s Rights Convention was held in 1850, the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution is passed, finally giving women the right to vote.

The amendment simply reads:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

But these two sentences were hard won despite the fact that 50 years prior, in 1870, Congress had passed the 15th Amendment, giving the right to vote to male citizens of color.

But letting women vote? We’d have to go through Prohibition first!

By the summer of 1920, 35 individual states had granted women the right to vote, Wyoming being the first in 1890. Just one more state was needed to ratify the amendment in order to make it Constitutional law.

Tennessee became that 36th state ¬but it took three roll calls. On the third round of voting, the youngest member of the state legislature, the 22-year old Republican (some accounts say he was 23), Harry Thomas Burn, unexpectedly changed his vote.

Burn had been wearing a red rose in his lapel, signifying that he was against giving women the right to vote. Those “for” the amendment wore yellow roses. When the voting began, red roses outnumbered yellow ones. Then the vote tied at 48 to 48 when Banks Turner changed his vote. Burn was sporting a red rose when he changed his vote in favor of the amendment.

Mayhem burst out. Local legend says that Burn was chased around the Capitol voting chamber by disappointed anti-suffragists. Some describe those chasing Burn as “a mob” which included, ironically, legislators as well as women who were against women having the right to vote!

The story goes that he ended up exiting the building through a window on the third floor, edging himself along the ledge of the Capitol, and finally hiding out in the attic.

What made Burn change his mind between the second and third vote? His mother, Febb Ensminger, had sent him a letter asking him to “do the right thing.”

Tennessee Governor A. H. Roberts signed the bill on August 24, 1920. The amendment formally became law on August 26. Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby read the amendment into law.

Mrs. J. L. Burn’s letter to her son:

Dear Son:

Hurrah, and vote for suffrage! Don’t keep them in doubt. I noticed some of the speeches against. They were bitter. I have been watching to see how you stood, but have not noticed anything yet. Don’t forget to be a good boy and help Mrs. Catt [Carrie Chapman Catt] put the ‘rat’ in ratification.

Signed, Your Mother.

In a later speech to his colleagues, Burn is quoted as saying:

I know that a mother’s advice is safest for her boy to follow and my mother wanted me to vote for ratification. But I appreciate the fact that an opportunity as does seldom come to mortal man to free 17 million from political slavery was mine. I do it not for any personal glory but for the glory of my party. (NYT August 17, 1995)

Carrie Chapman Catt was a former president of the National American Women’s Suffrage Association and one of the party leaders who worked on getting the amendment passed.

Links
www.archives.gov/education/lessons/woman-suffrage/
www.blueshoenashville.com/suffragehistory.html
www.law.umkc.edu/…

In 1997, Beth Ann Hogan became the first coed to matriculate at the Virginia Military Institute.

On a musical note:
In 1969, Woodstock closed with Jimi Hendrix. Hendrix had wanted to be the final performer. Scheduled to begin at midnight at the end of Day 3, he did not take the stage until 9 a.m., kinda on Day 4!

Some of the songs he played during those two hours included:
Foxy Lady, Purple Haze, Hey Joe and, of course, the Star Spangled Banner.

Jefferson Airplane (now Jefferson Starship), Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, and Sha-Na-Na played on Day 3.

Richie Havens, The Incredible String Band, Ravi Shankar, Arlo Guthrie and Joan Baez played on Day 1.

Day 2 included Santana, Grateful Dead, The Who, and Janis Joplin.

Bookmark this post:

At the time, they said we would grow into a nation of cynics. I mean, you can’t have the president of any nation revealed as a thief, a liar and a moral vacuum and then continue, business as usual. Rally round the flag. Hail to the chief and all that jazz.

Cynics? I thought they were wrong. We were a nation of outraged citizenry. More people came forward to do the “right thing” during the Watergate investigation than did not. By the way, the right thing, in this case, was both hard and dangerous.

It meant speaking out against bosses and policies and the “perversion” of law and civic rights.
Actual government officials, both high and low, had to come forward.
It meant, ultimately, speaking out against the president and those glowing in the ring of power.
Action would have to be taken, formal, messy, public and legal action.
It meant jolting the history books.
It meant that the citizens of this country would be given a choice: what we would find acceptable by our leaders and what we would not.

June 18 and June 19, 1972: the Washington Post reports on a break-in to Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel. Of the five arrested, one claims to be former CIA while another proves to be a Republican security aide.

October 10, 1972, the FBI verifies links between the Republican Committee to Re-Elect the President and the Watergate criminals. Among the charges are evidence of organized political spying and sabotage.

November 17, 1972, Nixon is re-elected in a landslide victory.

November, 17, 1973, Nixon publicly states he is innocent of any Watergate connection.

July 24, 1974, Congress overrules executive privilege and insists the President turn over missing tape recordings of White House conversations “forthwith.” The Supreme Court, in an 8-0 decision, supported the requisition of the tapes. Justice William H. Rehnquist recused himself because of his prior relationship with Nixon appointee and White House Attorney General, John N. Mitchell.

July 27, 1974, Congress passes three articles of impeachment against Nixon. The three articles of impeachment begin with obstruction of justice and end with subverting the laws of this nation.

August 8, 1974, Nixon resigns.

July 25, 1974, Congresswoman Barbara Jordan made the following speech before Congress. There is no room for cynicism in this speech. This is a moment in history that is sweeping and grand. It is inspiring:

Mr. Chairman:

I join in thanking you for giving the junior members of this committee the glorious opportunity of sharing the pain of this inquiry. Mr. Chairman, you are a strong man and it has not been easy but we have tried as best we can to give you as much assistance as possible.

Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, “We, the people.” It is a very eloquent beginning. But when the document was completed on the seventeenth of September 1787 I was not included in that “We, the people.” I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation and court decision I have finally been included in “We, the people.”

Today, I am an inquisitor; I believe hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.

…The subject of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men. That is what we are talking about. In other words, the jurisdiction comes from the abuse or violation of some public trust. It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution, for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office.

The Constitution doesn’t say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of this body, the legislature, against and upon the encroachment of the Executive. In establishing the division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judges the same person.

We know the nature of impeachment. We have been talking about it awhile now. It is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to “bridle” the Executive if he engages in excesses. It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men. The framers confined in the Congress the power, if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical and preservation of the independence of the Executive. The nature of impeachment is a narrowly channeled exception to the separation of powers maxim; the federal convention of 1787 said that. It limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and discounted and opposed the term, “maladministration.” “It is to be used only for great misdemeanors,” so it was said in the North Carolina ratification convention. And in the Virginia ratification convention: “We need one branch to check the others.”

The North Carolina ratification convention: “No one need to be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity.

“Prosecutions of impeachments will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community,” said Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, number 65. “And to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.” I do not mean political parties in that sense.

The drawing of political lines goes to the motivation behind impeachment; but impeachment must proceed within the confines of the constitutional term, “high crime and misdemeanors.”

Of the impeachment process, it was Woodrow Wilson who said that “nothing short of the grossest offenses against the plain law of the land will suffice to give them speed and effectiveness. Indignation so great as to overgrow party interest may secure a conviction; but nothing else can.”

Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons. Congress has a lot to do: Appropriations, tax reform, health insurance, campaign finance reform, housing, environmental protection, energy sufficiency, mass transportation. Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. So today we are not being petty. We are trying to be big, because the task we have before us is a big one.

This morning, in a discussion of the evidence, we were told that the evidence which purports to support the allegations of misuse of the CIA by the President is thin. We are told that that evidence is insufficient. What that recital of the evidence this morning did not include is what the President did know on June 23, 1972. The President did know that it was Republican money, that it was money from the Committee for the Re-election of the President, which was found in the possession of one of the burglars arrested on June 17.

What the President did know on June 23 was the prior activities of E. Howard Hunt, which included his participation in the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, which included Howard Hunt’s participation in the Dita Beard ITT affair, which included Howard Hunt’s fabrication of cables designed to discredit the Kennedy Administration.

We were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the President of the United States. There has not even been an obfuscated indication that this committee would receive any additional materials from the President. The committee subpoena is outstanding and if the President wants to supply that material, the committee sits here. The fact is that on yesterday, the American people waited with great anxiety for eight hours, not knowing whether their President would obey an order of the Supreme Court of the United States.

At this point, I would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the President’s actions.

Impeachment criteria: James Madison, from the Virginia ratification convention. “If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there is grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached.”

We have heard time and time again that the evidence reflects payment to the defendants of money. The President had knowledge that these funds were being paid and that these were funds collected for the 1972 presidential campaign. We know that the President met with Mr. Henry Petersen twenty-seven times to discuss matters related to Watergate, and immediately thereafter met with the very persons who were implicated in the information Mr. Petersen was receiving and transmitting to the President. The words are, “If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person, he may be impeached.”

Justice Story: “Impeachment is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power acting for the whole people is put into operation to protect their rights and rescue their liberties from violations.”

We know about the Houston plan. We know about the break-in of the psychiatrist’s office. We know that there was absolute, complete direction in August 1971 when the President instructed Ehrilichman to “do whatever is necessary.” This instruction led to a surreptitious entry into Dr. Fielding’s office. “Protect their rights.” “Rescue their liberties from violation.”

The South Carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria: Those are impeachable “who behave amiss or betray their public trust.”

Beginning shortly after the Watergate break-in and continuing to the present time, the President has engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors. Moreover, the President has made public announcements and assertions bearing on the Watergate case which the evidence will show he knew to be false. These assertions, false assertions; impeachable, those who misbehave. Those who “behave amiss or betray their public trust.”

James Madison, again at the constitutional convention: “A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.”

The Constitution charges the President with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the President has counseled his aides to commit perjury, willfully disregarded the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, concealed surreptitious entry, attempted to compromise a federal judge while publicly displaying his cooperation with the process of criminal justice. “A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.”

If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that eighteenth century Constitution should be abandoned to a twentieth century paper shredder.

Has the President committed offenses and planned and directed and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate? This is the question. We know that. We know the question.

We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question.

It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Happy notes:

July 26, 1948
President Harry S. Truman signs Executive Order 9981 and legally ends discrimination in the U.S. military and in the government. To be thorough, Truman also establishes the Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Forces.

President Truman’s Executive Order 9981 states:
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.

July 28, 1868
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified. It promises that all citizens, born or naturalized, are equally protected under the law. This granted African Americans the right of citizenship.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

July 31, 1777
The 19-year old Marquis de Lafayette became Major General de Lafayette in the Continental Army.

Recent birthday babes include:
Wesley Snipes, 1963, actor
Vita Blue, 1949, baseball great and winner of the Cy Young, American League MVP, and Sporting News Pitcher of the Year awards
Mick Jagger, 1944, legendary English rock ‘n roll bad boy…but you already know that
Bugs Bunny, 1940, debuts in the cartoon, “A Wild Hare”
Stanley Kubrick, 1928, director, A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, 2001: A Space Odyssey…
Henry Moore, 1898, English sculptor
Amelia Earhart, 1897, the first aviatrix to fly alone over the Atlantic
Robert Graves, 1895, English poet, novelist, critic and classical scholar (I, Claudius)
Aldous Huxley, 1894, author or Brave New World
Maxfield Parrish 1870, painter
Henry Ford, 1863, industrialist
Emily Bronte, 1818, English author of Wuthering Heights
Alexander Dumas, 1802, French author of The Three Musketeers

The Three Articles of Impeachment Against Richard M. Nixon (courtesy of www.historyplace.com)

Article 1: Obstruction of Justice.

In his conduct of the office of the President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that: On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct investigations of such unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan have included one or more of the following:

(1) Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.

(2) Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.

(3) Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings.

(4) Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force and congressional committees.

(5) Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payments of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities.

(6) Endeavoring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States.

(7) Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability.

(8) Making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation has been conducted with respect to allegation of misconduct on the part of personnel of the Executive Branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct; or

(9) Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Article 2: Abuse of Power.

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, imparting the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:

(1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

(2) He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

(3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions to him, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.

(4) He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive; judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as attorney general of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.

(5) In disregard of the rule of law: he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch: including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force of the Department of Justice, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws by faithfully executed.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Article 3: Contempt of Congress.

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, had failed without lawful cause or excuse, to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things, Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgement as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by Constitution in the House of Representatives.

In all this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office.

See these links for more Watergate history and Watergate timelines:
https://www.washingtonpost.com
https://www.watergate.info/chronology/brief.shtml
https://www.historyplace.com
https://www.watergate.info
https://www.landmarkcases.org

Bookmark this post:

Moon gazing.

Lovers’ moons.

Cows jumping over moons.

Goodnight Moons.

Man has had a love affair with that great silver orb probably since he first spied it washing his nights in light, shading his lover’s legs, or maybe just waxing and waning or doing cool things like turning copper.

When Rembrandt van Rijn was born on July 15, 1606, man did not dare consider ever setting foot on the moon. He hardly dared consider his own place in the universe. But Rembrandt surely considered the moon for he played with light and dark, brightness and shadow. This 17th century Dutch old master is most famous, perhaps, for his painting The Night Watch, which is just one of some 600 paintings he is credited with.

Rembrandt was a prolific experimenter, painting on canvas instead of common board and painting diverse subjects. He also is the creator of hundreds of etchings and even more drawings. But if you want to learn about moon walks and presidential dreams, read on, fair reader!

To see some of Rembrandt’s work, visit this link:

www.rijksmuseum.nl/index.jlp

On July 16, 1969, the Apollo 11 headed towards the moon with Neil Armstrong as commander, “Buzz” Aldrin as the lunar module pilot, and Michael Collins as the command module pilot.

This was the spacecraft, folks! This is the one that carries the first man to walk on the moon.

To see pictures from this voyage as well as to read (or hear) the astronauts report on the journey, go to this link: www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/

FirstLunarLanding/toc.html

In a speech to a joint session of Congress on March 25, 1961, President Kennedy asked Congress and the nation to make it a goal to safely land (and return) the first man to walk on the moon. Here is an excerpt from that speech

Now it is time to take longer strides–time for a great new American enterprise–time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on earth.

I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshalled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment.

Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket engines, which gives them many months of leadtime, and recognizing the likelihood that they will exploit this lead for some time to come in still more impressive successes, we nevertheless are required to make new efforts on our own. For while we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first, we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last. … But this is not merely a race. Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others. We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share.

I therefore ask the Congress, above and beyond the increases I have earlier requested for space activities, to provide the funds which are needed to meet the following national goals:

First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior. We propose additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned explorations–explorations which are particularly important for one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon–if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.

Bookmark this post:

Ah! Dreams…“We are the stuff that dreams are made on,” said Shakespeare and it is true.

This is a very special dream week. It is a week of wonder in terms of the creative as well as the courageous. Fair Reader, read on!

All I Have to Do Is Dream, the Everly Brothers, 50 years ago this week, released that fabulous song.

Ten years later, Otis Redding’s (Sittin’ on the) Dock of the Bay was on top of Billboard.

In 1964, The Beatles had just released A Hard Day’s Night which was followed, just one year later, by that ode to teenage angst, The Rolling Stones’ (I can’t get no) Satisfaction.

Check out this weird musical medley of hits from the 1970s:
On the one hand is The Commodores’ Three Times a Lady sharing radio space with Debby Boone’s You Light Up My Life, while on a totally different third hand are Waylon Jennings and Willie Nelson asking, Mammas, Don’t Let Your Children Grow Up to Be Cowboys.

That, in a clef note, was America in the late 1970s.

Some other high notes of the week:

Happy Birthday!
Wyoming (1890);

And happy birthday to the original raging bull, Jake la Motta (1921); to that heart-warming comedian Bill Cosby (1937); to tennis great Arthur Ashe (1943) … and to Robert the Bruce, King of Scotland (1274). That last one may be pushing it but ‘twas a great movie now, wasn’t it?

But! More important than Classic Coke’s return in 1985, or the U.S. Women’s Soccer Team winning the World Cup in 1999…

More important than Etch-a-Sketch making its happy debut in 1960…

Even of greater note than Geraldine Ferraro’s historic 1984 vice presidential nomination is the fact that…

On July 11, 1925, the Scopes Trial had just begun its second day of putting the freedom to teach evolution on trial.

Clarence Darrow would represent John Scopes, the Tennessee teacher who was accused of breaking a state law, the Butler Act, by teaching evolution in his science class.

The state was represented by that great orator and presidential aspirant, William Jennings Bryan.

Scopes was found guilty on July 21 (short trial) and fined $100.

It was, however, the Butler Act that was really on trial. Was it a fair law? (See the link below for the full text of the law.) It was repealed September 1, 1967.

On day 2 of the trial, Darrow argued that this law was, indeed, unconstitutional saying:

If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach it in the public school, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools… At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers. Soon you may set Catholic against Protestant and Protestant against Protestant [sic], and try to foist your own religion upon the minds of men. If you can do one you can do the other. Ignorance and fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding. … After awhile, your honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed.

The trial became the inspiration for the play, Inherit the Wind. The title, by the way, comes from a Bible verse:

He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart. (Proverbs 11:29)

Be well!
Concord Star

Related links courtesy of UMKC Law School:

Full text of the Butler Act (Tenn. HB 185, 1925) and its repeal: www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/tennstat.htm

Background on the trial:
www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm

Transcript of the trial:
www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes2.htm

Bookmark this post:

They were 26 to 70 years old.

Amongst them were former farmers, lawyers, printers, tax collectors, county sherriffs… They were, in many ways, quite ordinary and, as it turns out, they also were extra-ordinary if only to their dedication to a cause, an idea, a principle. They risked everything for that set of circumstances we call the Revolution.

On July 4, 1776, they published the Declaration of Independence, an extra-ordinary document because it is not just a declaration of war, but a well-reasoned explanation as to why a people would rebel against their government.

Should argument not be persuasive enough, they also listed their grievances.

If you have never read the entire Declaration, you should. The American Revolution was not fought only about taxes. It was fought over abuse of power.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Post script to our history:

To view the original or learn more about the Declaration of Independence, go to: www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html

To view the original as well as previous drafts and transcripts, go to: www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

To find out more about the signers, their age, occupaion, religion, etc., go to: www.usconstitution.net/declarsigndata.html

Did you know Ben Franklin, the oldest signer of the Declaration, was the only person to also sign the Paris Peace Treaty (1783) and the United States Constitution (1789)?

On a different note, if you’re ever interested in visiting the grave sites of the signers, go to: www.findagrave.com

Bookmark this post: