Progressives got their FBI report on Judge Kavanaugh, but not the one they wanted. They are spinning like tops to delegitimize it.
Here is the report’s Executive Summary:
Right click and choose “Open in new tab” to enlarge.
Progressives got their FBI report on Judge Kavanaugh, but not the one they wanted. They are spinning like tops to delegitimize it.
Here is the report’s Executive Summary:
Right click and choose “Open in new tab” to enlarge.
If you wonder why we are having a nightmare circus around the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the late Judge Robert Yates wrote the answer in 1787.
1787 was the year Judge Yates of New York, writing under the pseudonym Brutus, penned the Anti-Federalist No. 78, detailing precisely why Article III of the then proposed U.S. Constitution would have the unintended consequence of creating a Court that would be even more powerful than the other two branches, able to reshape our nation upon the whim of the Judges occupying the Court. His words were eerily prescient.
Our Founders crafted Article III of the Constitution to create a Supreme Court with no political check and balance. Our Founders did not foresee the rise of any group like the proggies in this country, a group that, since the end of WWII, has shamelessly and ruthlessly used the power of the Courts to reshape our nation by unconstitutional means.
The sole right to craft the policies of this nation are assigned to Congress in Article I. The duty to enforce those policies is assigned the President in Article II. The right to make changes to the Constitution lies solely with the people — not the Courts — per Article V. Our Founders envisioned the Courts as merely interpreting the law and insuring that any legislation comported with the Constitution and legislation passed by Congress. Our Founders catastrophically failed to foresee a Court so powerful it would take unto itself the power to rewrite laws and the Constitution itself. And yet that is where we are today, and it is why proggies are willing to go to any length to maintain a stranglehold on the Supreme Court.
It’s not like our Founders weren’t warned. This from Judge Yates provided that warning in 1787:
THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY
The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control. The business of this paper will be to illustrate this, and to show the danger that will result from it. I question whether the world ever saw, in any period of it, a court of justice invested with such immense powers, and yet placed in a situation so little responsible. Certain it is, that in England, and in the several states, where we have been taught to believe the courts of law are put upon the most prudent establishment, they are on a very different footing.
Brett Kavanaugh’s martyrdom before unfounded, bizarre, nonsensical accusations, is a Salem witch trial redux with hints of Mao’s Cultural Revolution.
The ordeal of Brett Kavanaugh takes us back to the bad old days of the Salem Witch Trials, though our proggies add their own Maoist Cultural Revolution gloss. If they succeed with Kavanaugh, he will be the first, not the last, to be hanged at Salem’s gallows hill.
And it is just in time for Halloween. The parallels we are seeing with the Salem Witch Trials are striking. Wild accusations. No physical evidence, but the mere charges and their number by “wronged” women supposedly being the proof. The townspeople thrown into mass hysteria, which plays out today with the mass hysteria the media is trying to create surrounding Brett Kavanaugh.
And as Corey Booker said yesterday, channeling Cotton Mather far more than Spartacus, facts proving innocence or guilt do not matter. The sheer weight of accusations is sufficient to dispense with Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination. Dispensing with Kavanaugh’s nomination because of that accusatory weight is a much more humane way of dealing with the accused sans trial than pressing him to death with heavy stones, as the Puritans did to Giles Corey in 1693.
Even the condemned in Salem were given more in the way of due process and a presumption of innocence.
Brett Kavanaugh, an eminently qualified jurist nominated for the Supreme Court, has, by all accounts, acquitted himself stalwartly and honorably as an adult. And yet the progs and their media arm are throwing everything at the wall hoping that something — anything really — sticks so that they can keep him off of the Supreme Court, forcing another choice that could not possibly be confirmed prior to the November 2018 election . . .
So let’s do a quick review of the charges and the ever-moving goal posts. [Read more…]
This may well be Lindsey Graham’s finest hour. If you did not watch the entire hearing, Sen. Graham gives an excellent summary in under 5 minutes.
The hearing “proved” nothing. We know now, post hearing, no more about the truth or falsity of the charges against Judge Kavanaugh than had been reported in the press through Wednesday. Christine Blasey Ford asserted; Judge Kavanaugh denied. No one named by Ford as a witness corroborated Ford’s story, leaving but a bald allegation that none but the most rabid partisan proggie could possibly credit. And perhaps by Saturday, it appears that Judge Kavanaugh will be voted onto the Supreme Court.
What the hearing did show was just how underhanded the Democrats are in Congress. This hearing was never about whether Kavanaugh actually wronged Ford 36 years ago. If that was the concern, Feinstein would have given Ford’s charges to the full Judiciary Committee within 24 hours of receiving them and the charges would have been fully investigated by the Senate.
No, this was about shamelessly abusing process to stop Senate approval of Kavanaugh until after the next Congress was seated, wholly irrespective of the truth or falsity of the allegations. This is a tried and true tactic of proggies — think of every October surprise when a horrible accusation against a Republican opponent hits the media shortly before the election. Most recently, Hillary and the DNC planted the Trump collusion narrative in the media just a few weeks the 2016 election.
This one might backfire. Kavanaugh has a sterling reputation as a judge and a man. Not a single witness during the confirmation hearing who knew Judge Kavanaugh questioned his character or fitness, The guy is a boy scout. I can’t see how this does not have a huge impact on Republican turnout in the upcoming election. Righteous indignation is a huge motivator.
And kudos to Senator Graham for laying it all out clearly. He pulled no punches in calling out the progressive scum sitting at the table with him, describing how unfairly and unethically they had treated Kavanaugh since after the conclusion of the hearing. I sincerely hope that Graham or someone on the Judiciary Committee files an ethics complaint against Sen. Feinstein and publicly seeks to have her censured, if not impeached, for her role in this travesty. And to make sure the rest of America does not forget what she and proggies have done between now and voting day, 2018. I am sure that there are many people out there who are horrified at the depths of naked proggie ambition and amorality.
When you hear a progressive use the word “weaponize,” you know you are over the target.
The word “weaponize” came into the English lexicon in 1957, when Werner von Braun spoke of arming missiles with nuclear warheads. We’ve come a long way since 1957, but dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster have not yet moved beyond defining the word in terms of physical weaponry.
Many conservatives used the word “weaponize” during the Obama years to complain about government agencies being used to unfairly target conservatives or to unlawfully push an ideological agenda outside of Constitutional and legal restrictions. So, for example, this from Forbes in 2014:
The weaponization of government is happening and it’s time Americans took notice. . . .
Last week a senior United States Senator gave a speech stating that the IRS should be used to target and punish groups that disagree with the Democratic Party’s political agenda. Sen. Chuck Schumer stated, “…there are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies — we must redouble those efforts immediately.” Schumer was also one of a number of Democrat Senators who signed a 2012 letter to the IRS demanding they be more aggressive against conservative organizations. Sure, it was a story in primarily conservative media for a couple of days but no coordinated action between Republican elected officials and the conservative grassroots against Chuck Schumer is being contemplated. The Senate should be censuring him for suggesting that the IRS be used as a political weapon against conservative organizations. Americans, however, should be calling for his head.
Last year, Lois Lerner, the IRS’ former director of Tax Exempt Organizations, publicly acknowledged the political, predatory and punitive actions of the agency that led to the harassment and intimidation of conservative groups. Anyone who thinks that these IRS bureaucrats were acting solely in response to the Senators’ letter or of their own volition is kidding themselves. . . .
This is obviously bad. The facts show the progressives as aggressors and conservatives as innocent victims of unlawful misuse of government power. That turns the neo-marxist victimology of our progressives on its head.
If the FBI did not initiate its investigation into allegations of Trump until July, 2016, why did the FBI produce a document dated in February, 2016.
Over the weekend, the FBI produced 71 pages of documents (available as a pdf download from FBI Vault) regarding its relationship to Christopher Steele as pertains to the Russia investigation. Virtually every document is entirely redacted in relevant part — for which someone in the document production chain should be jailed, I might add. Be that as it may, the final document provided is not fully redacted. It memorializes an “admonishment” to Steele that, as I understand it, explains to him limits upon his actions while working as a confidential informant. The date on that document is 2 February 2016.
That date is inexplicable within the Trump-Russia timeline.
As I’ve previously pointed out on this blog, Glen Simpson testified (see Transcript, p. 77) that he was approached by DNC’s outside attorney, Marc Elias of Perkins Coie, to do opposition research on Donald Trump in “May or June” 2016. That is when Simpson has testified that he hired Steele.
Steele’s first report generated out of that relationship was dated 20 June 2016, and Simpson has testified that Steele subsequently provided that to the FBI, initiating his relationship with the FBI as a confidential informant. If one reads the recently released — and itself highly redacted — FISA warrant for Carter Page, that timeline, at least by sequence of events, is attested to in the FISA warrant (page 16).
This is a huge issue. If the date on that admonishment is accurate, then it goes to whether the FBI had any justification for opening its investigation of Trump and whether or not this was, for lack of a better phrase, a Beriaesqe strike: “Show me the Republican candidate for President, I’ll find you the crime.” Moreover, it conflicts with the information the FBI provided the court in the FISA warrant.
The FBI needs to answer this mystery.
Update: At another site, they point out that the admonishment could be in relation to work Steele was doing on another case. The only prior case — at least as has been made public to date — wherein Steele, in his capacity as a private citizen, conducted an investigation and provided that information to the FBI was in the case brought by DOJ against FIFA in 2015. Presumably, Steele would have received the same “admonishment” in that case, thus there would not be a need to redo it. Or if regulations require such an admonishment in each new case where Steele is involved as a private citizen acting as an informant, then why not one in July, 2016, when supposedly the Trump investigation began?
There may well be a reasonable explanation for this 2 February 2016 “admonishment.” But at this point, is anyone besides Adam Schiff willing to take a bald assertion from FBI or DOJ as an answer?
Socialism should be in the dust-bin of history. Instead, it is embraced by Democrats, many of whom have no understanding of it’s reality.
The history of the world, since 1792, has been a competition to see which will win out — the Enlightenment ideals of the American Revolution, or the socialist ideals of the French Revolution. In the 20th century, the latter lost horrendously, and yet, a recent Rasmussen poll found:
51% of Democrats have a favorable impression of socialism, with 13% who share a Very Favorable one.
29% of Democrats do not understand socialism and its power structure
A bare majority of Democrats are against an outright declaration that the Democrat Party is a socialist party.
Why in the world are we still debating socialism or communism, either as a cultural or economic system of any benefit to humanity, after the turn of the 20th century? As Kurt Schlichter asks, are these people stupid, evil or both? I think it’s both.
The Enlightenment values of our American Revolution are about equality of opportunity — as Locke would put it, our natural God-given rights to life, liberty and property. Simply because you enjoy those rights does not presuppose that you are or must violate anyone else’s right to life, liberty or property. We have yet to fully live up to those values, but where we have failed, it has been because of government intervention, whether that be with Jim Crow laws on one hand, or minimum wage laws on the other.
Standing in complete contradiction are the socialist values of enforced equality of outcome. To achieve equality of outcome, you have to violate all of the rights to life, liberty and property of most, if not all citizens, and that can only happen at the point of a gun. History has shown, beyond any doubt, that giving a government that much power is giving them the power to be a murderous police state. Indeed, it has been so since the first moment of socialism’s birth in the crucible of the French Revolution. While Robespierre was proclaiming “liberté, égalité, fraternité,” the guillotine was being worked non-stop to deny liberty to anyone who dared challenge Robespierre and his new government.
Moreover, in any socialist paradise, equality of outcome is never achieved, merely the beneficiaries of the inequality change. No longer is it the builder or the inventor or the artist who amasses wealth and builds upon it. Rarely does anything of worth to humanity come out of a populace under the gun of socialism. The new rich in any socialist country are the government apparatchiks and their family or cronies. Or if you are in a theocracy, look to the rag-heads.
Tomes have been written about this, many of them by Milton Friedman, a man who would be 106 were he alive today. Here are a few of his observations on socialism and related topics.
The rebirth of socialism is absurd
Links from around the ‘net.
Anyone getting the impression that perhaps the people teaching our young minds full of mush are making it up as they go along? This from a Meagan McArdle tweet: (h/t Instapundit)
Wrote a column on Venezuela and socialism [Venezuela’s Inflation Rate To Hit 1,000,000 Percent. Thanks, socialism]. Being assailed by people who say that I obviously have no idea what socialism is, since socialism doesn’t involve state control of the economy.
Venezuelan money is now worth less than the paper on which it is printed. Note the top-rated comment at Wapo with 243 likes:
Venezuela is not suffering from socialism. It is suffering from a corrupt, incompetent, protectionist, centrally planned, kleptocratic, undemocratic, repressive regime.
I get the felling that you really don’t know what “socialism” means, but you like to throw it out there to get the MAGA crowd (who also don’t know what it means) riled up. Maybe you should read a good economics text some day.
As always, it is not that socialism is a failure, it is just that centrally planned economics have never been properly applied. Oh, and giving government such extensive power so that they can implement socialism at the end of a gun has nothing to do with all the rest of those things, like repressive, corrupt, incompetent, etc. Note also that, for some reason, imposing socialism almost always requires disarming the populace first. My question, who erased the 20th century in all of our colleges’ history and economics books?
The commenters seem a product of our finest educational institutions in the economic field. That said, at least Coleman Hughes seems to be paying attention in his courses that involve economics and the racial wealth gap.
Justice is supposed to be blind. That is not the case in America today and President Trump is partly to blame.
[Update: This today from the Daily Caller:
President Donald Trump chose to have the indictments of 12 Russian hackers announced before his Helsinki summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to a Tuesday Bloomberg report.
Trump wanted the indictments announced ahead of the Monday summit to give him leverage over Putin, a source familiar with the matter told Bloomberg on Tuesday. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein gave Trump the option of having the indictments released before or after Helsinki, according to the report.
Rosenstein cited national security concerns to allow him to share details of grand jury proceedings with Trump.
A portion of this post was based on incomplete information and thus has been edited to reflect the above, that the timing of the indictments was at the behest of Pres. Trump. The thrust of the original argument remains.]
Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned. Abortion is not a Constitutional right. If the left wishes it to be, they need to follow Article V.
The proggies are in a full court press to defeat Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh. According to the DNC website:
WHAT’S AT STAKE
A vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade . . .
Are they right? If Kavangugh is the originalist that his record suggests, then quite likely.
In any event, let’s hope they are right. Who controls our country, we the 310 million people through our elected representatives, or five unelected judges ruling at their whim like a politburo, facing no consequences for their assault on our Constitution?
No decision has done more to skew our politics over the past half century than Roe v. Wade. The decision was as pure an act of judicial activism as we’ve ever seen. It was at least as much an act of judicial activism as the obscene homosexual romance novel crafted by Justice Kennedy in Obergefell. It was obscene not in a prurient sense, but rather in its assault on the Constitution.
When I say “judicial activism,” I mean a judicial invention of a new right declared from the bench in complete contravention of Article V of the Constitution. Let’s go through this step by step.
An originalist looks at the time frame in which the Constitution or a particular Amendment was passed. Question one they would ask is whether, when a particular principal was announced, a particular condition existed? So, when the 14th Amendment was passed, were abortions known to society? If so, then the next question is whether there is any evidence that the condition was within the contemplation of those who drafted, debated, or voted upon the Amendment? If the answer is no, that answers the Constitutional question in the negative.
If anyone wants to change that answer — if they wish to change the Constitution or add a new right in its Amendments, then their recourse is not to the Courts. Per Article V of the Constitution, an Amendment to the Constitution can only be done by a Constitutional Convention or 2/3rds ratification by federal and state legislatures. Neither involves the Courts. Not even wise Latina justices full of empathy. Period.
The June Report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows a strengthening economy, particularly good for minorities. The DNC calls it “reckless.”
After eight years of a moribund economy under Obama, an eight year stretch that was particularly hard on minorities, it is indeed good to see an increasing number of people returning to the workforce. So June’s jobs report from the BLS: over 600,000 people returned to the workforce; 213,000 new jobs added; minority unemployment at record lows. As always, for a complete analysis, visit Tom Blumer’s Bizzy Blog.
We still have a long way to go to recover from the damage done by eight years of Obama and the Democrats sub-prime nuclear explosion in our economy. On the first month of Obama’s presidency, in Feb. 2008, the Labor Force Participation Rate stood at 66.0%. In the last month of his Presidency, Dec. 2016, it stood at 62.7%. Now, with people returning to the workforce in an improving economy under Trump, that number is slowly going back up. It stands in June at 62.9%.
From IBD: The U.S. Colorblind Jobs Boom Continues
It may be a surprise, but President Trump is nowhere near as unpopular among minority voters as the biased mainstream media suggest. Why is that? In a word, jobs.
Trump, it turns out, has been the most consequential president in history when it comes to minority employment. In June, for instance, the unemployment rate for Hispanics and Latinos 16 years and older fell to 4.6%, its lowest level ever, from 4.9% in May. The previous all-time low was 4.8%.
African-American unemployment bounced up from its all-time low of 5.9% in May to 6.5% in June. But that 6.5% still represents the second-lowest unemployment reading ever for Black Americans.
As for Asian-Americans, unemployment similarly bounced off its all-time low of 2.1% in May, rising to 3.2%. And that’s still 0.6 percentage point lower than when Trump entered office.
The Declaration of Independence was written for the colonists, to justify our call to arms, and to Britain’s enemies, to assure them of our intent.
Update: Read the Declaration of Independence while you still can. Apparently Facebook recently censored a portion of its publication as “hate speech.”
Historical Commentary: In 1760, Britain was on the verge of finally defeating France in the Seven Years War, the economy was growing, and virtually every American colonist was proud to be a British citizen. Even as Britain, out of misplaced jealousy and greed, slowly tried to strangle its colonies over the next sixteen years, the majority of colonists still wanted nothing more than to remain in the British fold.
That finally changed among a bare majority of patriots after shots were fired at Lexington and Concord, in 1775, and after Thomas Paine published the most read pamphlet in American history, Common Sense, justifying rebellion against Britain. A decision had to be made, though it was not clear that we would declare independence until, after several votes and much debate, we voted to do so on July 2, 1776. The colonists themselves needed a sufficient reason to fight — to create a new nation that would be better than the old. And we needed foreign support, particularly from Britain’s long term enemies, France and the Netherlands. Both would only offer their support to us if we unequivocally proclaimed that our intent was to form a new nation. The Declaration of Independence was commissioned for those two audiences.
Everyone knows Jefferson’s preamble, a restatement of Locke’s natural rights theory that itself is founded on Christianity. It was the high water mark of the English Enlightenment. Jefferson’s preamble provided the philosophical basis for our rebellion and the creation of our new nation.
After Jefferson’s preamble came the specific complaints drafted by joint effort of all of the members of the Second Continental Congress. Everyone knows that the colonists demanded that they only be taxed — and subject to laws — passed by their own governments, not by the Parliament sitting in London. But the members of the Second Continental Congress went far beyond that, setting forth in the Declaration of Independence the “long train of abuses,” to quote Locke, that accumulated over sixteen years and that now justified our rebellion.
As you read this, remember that, in July 1776, the outcome of this rebellion was anything but certain. Moreover, signing the Declaration was a death warrant for the signatories. If they lost the war and were caught, they faced being hanged, drawn and quartered for treason and their families thrown into absolute poverty.
The one high ranking member of the Revolution, Henry Laurens, who was caught by the Brits in 1780, was charged with treason and held in the Tower of London. Fortunately for Laurens, the Brits soon after lost the Battle of Yorktown and Britain exchanged Laurens for Lord Cornwallis, the British commander captured by the Americans at Yorktown.
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
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.
[This is a generic complaint against the King for retaining power to veto duly passed local laws and likely a specific complaint about the King’s repeated veto of laws passed by Pennsylvania to restrict the slave trade in that colony. ]
Happy 4th of July, . . .
. . . from that most patriotic of animals, a Labrador Retriever. Just to let you know, Labbies support America, apple pie, and building the wall. Many can be seen around town sporting MAGA hats on the 4th. By comparison, chihuahuas support open borders and abolishing ICE. Moreover, I know for a fact not a single chihuahua has ever read the Declaration of Independence, though I have seen several of them over the years pawing through the Communist Manifesto and books by Howard Zinn. (H/T for the picture, American Digest)
John Adams – Great American Patriot, Poor Prognosticator. Reposted from 2 July 2017.
On July 2, 1776, the 2nd Continental Congress voted to approve the Declaration of Independence and sent it print. Congress did not officially declare Independence and release the document to the public until July 4, 1776. Nonetheless, on July 3, 1776, John Adams wrote a letter to his beloved wife, Abigail, forecasting that our nation would long celebrate its birth — but he was a bit off on the date:
. . . The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.—I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.
You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not.—I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States.—Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.
Many historians call George Washington the “indispensable man” — the man without whom the Revolution would not have succeeded. Quite true, I think. That said, the Revolution would never been given into Washington’s hands were it not for the efforts of John Adams and his cousin, Sam Adams, between 1761 and July 2, 1776. And as to John Adams in particular, his wife Abigail was his love, his confidant, and his sounding board. Their relationship was heartwarming and fascinating. Having studied John Adams in some detail, I think it fair to say that he would not have been who he was without Abigail at his side.
News of the Declaration of Independence, drowned out other national news — both at the time and even to this day, the most important being news of America’s first great victory over the British that had occurred but days earlier. on June 28, at The Battle of Sullivan’s Island. There the British were defeated in their first offensive of the war, an offensive to capture the Southern colonies generally and the port of Charleston in particular.
If you have never seen it, 1776 is a very entertaining musical about the efforts of John Adams (with a nod to Abigail) and his fellow delegates at the Second Continental Congress to draft and pass the Declaration of Independence. It is historically very accurate, though I don’t think John Adams and Ben Franklin every broke out into a duet. Regardless, I recommend it highly and have embedded two songs from the musical below.
Time to acknowledge those several ladies who made critical contributions to the American Revolution from a supine position.
There were numerous women who notably contributed to the American Revolution, and indeed, it fair to say as an equity feminist, historian, and romantic that the American Revolution and the framing of the Bill of Rights owes a heavy debt to women, from Abigail Adams to Mercy Otis Warren. But that is not the purpose of this post. This post — as I am a 14 yr. old boy trapped in a man’s body — is dedicated to those women who made their contribution to the American Revolution lying on their backs (assuming they were partial to missionary pos– . . . eh, you know what I mean), and without whom. we could not possibly have won the Revolution when we did. To those ladies of questionable morals, lax virtue and good natures, as a proud American, I salute you.
“The shot heard round the world” of April 19, 1775, was the opening salvo of the American Revolution fired by the British at Lexington Green. The plans for the British night march to Concord through Lexington, to both capture American arms and to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock, were top secret. The British commander told only two people, his second in command and his wife. Yet when the British marched on Concord, the colonists were ready and immediately reacted.
The Legend: General Gage had spent several years in Boston as the overall commander of British forces. The doctor he employed for his wife and children was a local, Dr. Joseph Warren, one of our nation’s most celebrated patriots. Dr. Warren, out of an abundance of caution, is alleged to have resorted to repeated use of a unique type of thermometer to check on Mrs. Gage’s health (“Oops, there goes the mercury again. Let me get you a towel”). She kindly warned him of British plans.
What is known: Mrs. Gage was likely the informant of British plans but it is speculation that Mrs. Gage and Dr. Warren were engaged in an affair.