It’s said, Sam Adams started the Revolution, and he did it with the mighty pen. And since he really didn’t want his name on all his ranting against the crown…he made up all kinds of names for his penname:
Philo Patriae and Paces, Vindex the Avenger, Determinatus, Decant Ara Togae, (weapons are under my cloak!) Principiis Obsta: (principle obstacle) , Valerius Poplicola, Candidus, and Populus. He was also: An American, A Tory, Alfred, A Son of Liberty, A Puritan, and A Religious Politician– among many.
And Sam wasn’t the only one who wanted to remain anonymous.
Benjamin Franklin was Silence Dogood, and Polly Baker and Richard Saunders and Anthony Afterwit, Martha Careful, Alice Addertongue, Celia Shortface, Harry Meanwell, Fanny Mournful, Obadiah Plainman, Busy Body, and Sidi Mehemt Ibrahim.
John Adams was Sui Juris, U, Davila, and Humphrey Ploughjogger…and my personal favorite: Novanglus. (which means New England.)
James Madison was Helvidius and Cato…
After Thomas Paine wrote an anonymous pamphlet criticizing President George Washington‘s policies, John Quincy Adams (John’s son) wrote a series of anonymous articles called “Publicola”, defending the president. They were so well done people assumed his father wrote them.
And I even write under a pen name…Joyanna is a combination of my first name and my grandmother’s name…and Adams is not my married name, but I picked it out of respect to the founding Adams, as I am a direct descendant of that family on my mother’s side.
I really didn’t want anyone to know my married name.
In this country, writing under a pen name, thus remaining anonymous, has been protected by the Supreme Court.
In its 1960 decision in Talley v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that a law forbidding individuals from distributing handbills without identifying their identity unconstitutionally infringed on the First Amendment’s guarantee to free speech. The Court declared:
Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. . . . Before the Revolutionary War colonial patriots frequently had to conceal their authorship or distribution of literature that easily could have brought down on them prosecutions by English-controlled courts. . . . It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes.
SO…what in the world is this new bill being proposed in the Illinois Senate all about?
A new bill proposed in the Illinois State Senate looks to completely wipe out any form of anonymity on the internet by requiring that the operators of basically any website on the entire internet take down any comment that isn’t attached to an IP, address, and real name-verified poster.
It’s called the Internet Posting Removal Act and was introduced on February 13th by Illinois General Assembly veteran Ira I. Silverstein [D]. Not wanting to leave any bases uncovered, Silverstein includes that an “Anonymous Poster” means “any individual who posts a message on a web site including social networks, blogs, forums, message boards, or any other discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages.”
If James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay were alive and publishing under the false name “Publius” today, they would be prime candidates for prosecution under Virginia’s anti-spam law, and the Internet Posting Removal Act. They would most likely be using the Internet to get their message out to as many fellow citizens as possible. They could be arrested for speaking their minds on important issues of the day.
Clearly, Obama’s government wants to know WHO is writing the essays and blogs against them. Sure, there are some bad people out there spamming, but making it a crime to not sign your real name is not how are country was founded.
It is a right, given to us by our founders. If not for them, we wouldn’t be here.
And I’m sure Alice Addertongue would agree with me 100 percent!
Revolutions. Sam Adams was the man who, along with Colonel James Otis, fanned the flames of the American Revolution. Van Jones has been trying to do the same, spark a ‘revolution.’ The progressives will tell you that Van Jones is just doing what our founders did…but…there IS a big difference. Van Jones wants redistribution of wealth, and reparations for slavery. Van Jones is a addmitted communist. Sam Adams fought for freedom. Here’s a good explanation from Judge Napolitano:
“When America was in its infancy and struggling to find a culture and frustrated at governance from Great Britain, the word most frequently uttered in speeches and pamphlets and letters was not safety or taxes or peace; it was freedom.”
Two acts of Parliament broke the bonds with the mother country irreparably. The first was the Stamp Act, which was enforced by British soldiers writing their own search warrants and rummaging through the personal possessions of colonists looking to see whether they had purchased the government’s stamps. The second was the imposition of a tax to finance the Church of England, which the colonists were forced to pay, no matter their religious beliefs. (Think of Obama making the Catholic Church pay for abortions.)
The Stamp Act assaulted the right to be left alone in the home, and the tax for the Church of England assaulted the freedom to choose to support one’s own means of worship. The two taxes together caused many colonists to realize they needed to secede from England and form their own country in which freedom would be protected by the government, not assaulted by it.”
Boston had been on a slow boil for years before the stamp act. Sam’s father, Deacon Adams lost his money in the Land Bank crash (think 2008) The family lost all its money, and Sam, unlike his dad, was a lousy businessman. Deacon Adams drew up Boston’s declarations of grievances against the British government, in 1731 as “Breaches of the Magna Charta, The Charter of Province and an Act of Parliament.” In 1740 the colony reached the crisis of an economics depression.They really don’t mention that in the history books do they?. But in the book Sam Adams: Pioneer in Propaganda” the author John C. Miller says this:
“The promoters of the Land Bank were frankly inflationist who proposed to bring back prosperity by flooding the country with paper bills and at the same time to ‘humble the Merchants” by taking the control of currency out of their hands.”
So, out of this ‘depression’ came two distinct social classes :rich and poor. The rich were the British governors who hoarded, and it wasn’t until 45 years later that the American ’revolution’ came..and it came with mobs.
The mobs of Boston, of which there were two…North and South, which by the way, didn’t get along until Sam Adams united them, had their nemesis in Thomas Hutchinson. HE outlawed paper money through Parliamentary legislation.
Hutchinson was their ‘Obama.” Otis feared Hutchinson more because he used, ” soft words, a smiling countenance, fair promises and other tickling blandishments to gain his purpose.”
Nobody says that sounds like Obama…does it not?
Due to the depression of 1731, the merchants of America started illegally trading with other countries and making themselves wealthy, not the British empire. The colonies were run by a few British oligarchic families. Sam Adams, who by this time had discovered his true talent, writing, spent his life continuing his father’s pastime: politics. Everyone read Sam Adams in the newspapers, and at night the citizens would go to the pubs and out of those pubs came the Sons of Liberty, formed in 1765. Of course, sometimes those “Sons of Liberty” got a little too drunk on rum and went looking for houses to burn.
King George had his own problems. He was in debt for the French and Indian War, (And his own wars against the French overseas) and the citizens of Britain thought the colonies were fat and happy,— THEY didn’t want to be taxed anymore. Something had to give. So, when the stamp act came, Sam lead the way with “no taxation without representation.” And Sam —-took control of the ‘mob’.
Sam was asking for British rights. If we were going to be taxed, then we should have a voice. That concept is from the English Magna Charta. People should have a voice, but the Americans didn’t. So Napolitano has it right. The revolution was mostly about our freedom.
Nobody Thinks that history seems to be repeating itself. The American people are being taxed and put into a debt they can never repay, by an oligarchy much like the one that ruled us in the beginning.
The elites are well aware of the imparity. They know that the people are getting pretty fed up, as we did so long ago. That’s why they are taking our freedoms in the name of “protecting us.” They’ve made too many promises, and squandered trillions.
Van Jones, wants to take control of those mobs. But, unlike Sam Adams, Van Jones is a communist. Communists make revolutions in order put in dictatorships, as a means to an end. Van Jones is calling for more protest this weekend.
Sam Adams, joined the two mobs of Boston, and brought us…in the end…freedom. Van Jones revolution will bring us…tyranny.
So next time you hear Van Jones talking about ‘revolution’ remember: Pick your revolutionary leaders well., or else next thing you know…you’ll be ordered to read Stalin’s’ exercise book, and all you will be able to afford to eat are vegetables grown in China.
Van Jones can take his “green” revolution and stick it where the sun don’t shine, which is probably what Sam would have said had been living in 2012. God Bless Sam Adams…In 1775, America picked the RIGHT revolutionary.
Will we do it again?