News , USA Stories , Hot Topics

George Washington was the very first President of the United States from 1789 to 1797. It is interesting to look at the back-ground which prepared him for the role of first President of the United States. He was born on February 22, 1732, at a time when America was one of the British Colonies. He was born on his family's Pope's Creek Estate near present-day Colonial Beach in Westmoreland County, Virginia.
In his youth, Washington worked as a surveyor, and in this way he acquired invaluable knowledge of the terrain around his native Colony of Virginia, which helped him later. In 1749, he was appointed as surveyor of the newly created Culpeper County. In 1752, Washington joined the Virginia militia and was appointed as a district adjutant general, and appointed Major at the age of 20.
In April 1775, fighting broke out, which started the American Revolutionary War, also known as the American War of Independence. Washington had a sound military back-ground, which aided his appointment as Commander of the Continental Army. At this time The British had besieged Boston, and Washington placed artillery on Dorchester Heights overlooking the city, and forced the British to evacuate it. In August 1776, the British launched a massive naval and land campaign designed to seize New York. Washington engaged the enemy for the first time at the Battle of Long Island, the largest battle of the entire war, a British victory which forced Washington out of New York and across New Jersey. On the night of December 25, 1776, Washington staged a counter-attack, leading the American forces across the Delaware River and captured nearly 1,000 Hessians. He followed this victory with another one at Princeton, which quickly raised the morale of his Continental army.
Not everything went Washington's way, as he suffered a defeat in the Battle of Brandywine on September 11, 1777. France then entered the war, in support of America. In December 1977, Washington's army camped at Valley Forge for six months, during which time 2,500 of the 10,000-strong force died from disease and exposure. However, he organized a full-scale training program, under the supervision of Baron von Steuben, a veteran of the Prussian general staff.
In 1778, the British evacuated Philadelphia to New York, and Washington attacked them at Monmouth, driving them from the battlefield. Afterwards, the British headed towards New York, and Washington moved his army outside the city. He delivered the final blow to the British in 1781, after a French naval victory allowed American and French forces to trap the British army in Virginia. In 1783 the Treaty of Paris was signed, by which Britain recognized the independence of the United States.
At first, the United States was governed without a President under the Articles of Confederation, which were the forerunner to the Constitution. In 1789, Washington was unanimously elected as President, as he had gained a high reputation for his military success. He took the oath of office as the first President under the Constitution for the United States of America on April 30, 1789 at Federal Hall in New York City.
The 1st United States Congress voted to pay Washington a salary of $25,000 a year, which was a large sum in 1789. Washington's initial reaction was to decline the salary. However, he later accepted it, on the grounds that otherwise the presidency would be perceived as limited only to independently wealthy individuals, who could serve afford to serve without salary. Washington ensured that the titles and trappings were suitably republican, as he had no wish to emulate the European countries, such as his preference for the title "Mr. President".
Washington proved an able administrator. Whilst he reluctantly served a second term, he refused to run for a third, and so established the policy for a president to serve a maximum of two terms, which later became law by the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.
At this early period, there were no political parties in America, and Washington warned against them, on the grounds that they would cause conflict and stagnation. Washington was a man known for his high values, as evidenced by the famous story when he cut down his father's cherry tree, and confessed "I cannot tell a lie. It was I!" Therefore, it is not surprising that his Farewell Address of 1796 forms one of the most influential statements of American political values. It gives advice on the value of the Constitution and the rule of law, the evils of political parties, and the proper virtues of a republican people.
After retiring from the presidency in March 1797, Washington returned to Mount Vernon, and devoted much time of his time to farming. On December 12, 1799, he went out on horseback in the snow to inspect his farms, and the next morning, awoke with a bad cold and a throat infection called quinsy. He died on the evening of December 14, 1799, at the age of 67. Modern doctors believe that Washington died largely because of his treatment, which included bloodletting, which resulted in a loss of five pints of blood.
Throughout the world men and women were saddened by Washington's death. Napoleon ordered ten days of mourning throughout France. On December 18, 1799, a funeral was held at Mount Vernon, and in the funeral oration, Henry Lee stated that of all Americans, Washington was "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen."
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Diane_Cleak

For decades, we have held in contempt those who actively celebrate death. When we’ve seen video footage of foreigners cheering terrorist attacks against America, we have ignored their insistence that they are celebrating merely because we have occupied their nations and killed their people. Instead, we have been rightly disgusted -- not only because they are lauding the death of our innocents, but because, more fundamentally, they are celebrating death itself. That latter part had been anathema to a nation built on the presumption that life is an "unalienable right."
But in the years since 9/11, we have begun vaguely mimicking those we say we despise, sometimes celebrating bloodshed against those we see as Bad Guys just as vigorously as our enemies celebrate bloodshed against innocent Americans they (wrongly) deem as Bad Guys. Indeed, an America that once carefully refrained from flaunting gruesome pictures of our victims for fear of engaging in ugly death euphoria now ogles pictures of Uday and Qusay’s corpses, rejoices over images of Saddam Hussein’s hanging and throws a party at news that bin Laden was shot in the head. Read more at salon.com.
Killing of Bin Laden: What Are the Consequences?
By Glenn Greenwald
...I'd have strongly preferred that Osama bin Laden be captured rather than killed so that he could be tried for his crimes and punished in accordance with due process (and to obtain presumably ample intelligence). But if he in fact used force to resist capture, then the U.S. military was entitled to use force against him, the way American police routinely do against suspects who use violence to resist capture. But those are legalities and they will be ignored even more so than usual. The 9/11 attack was a heinous and wanton slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians, and it's understandable that people are reacting with glee over the death of the person responsible for it. I personally don't derive joy or an impulse to chant boastfully at the news that someone just got two bullets put in their skull -- no matter who that someone is -- but that reaction is inevitable: it's the classic case of raucously cheering in a movie theater when the dastardly villain finally gets his due. Read more at salon.com.
Celebrating Bin Laden's Killing: It's Complicated
By Petula Dvorak
A generation of young Americans slammed the door Monday on the great big boogeyman of their childhoods with an epic woot-woot and rounds and rounds of “U.S.A.!”
At the news of Osama bin Laden’s death, thousands of people — most of them college-age and in requisite flip-floppy collegiate gear — whipped up a raucous celebration right outside the White House gates that was one part Mardi Gras and two parts Bon Jovi concert.
There were cigars, a few beers, a lacrosse-stick-turned-flagpole waved by a kid who just climbed a statue, joining others aloft in trees and atop lampposts. Well past midnight, cars zipped up and down the streets of downtown Washington with women standing up through sunroofs waving ginormous American flags and guys blowing vuvuzelas, spring break style.
It felt a little crazy, a bit much. Almost vulgar. Read more at washingtonpost.com.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/05/03/liberals-sickened-usa-usa-chants#ixzz1opQriRjh

Tripoli, Sunday. A Nato air strike killed Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi ‘s youngest son and three grandchildren, a spokesman said today, after rebels and Nato dismissed an offer for talks to end the crisis.

The house of Seif al-Arab Gaddafi, 29 (pictured), “was attacked tonight with full power,” government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim told a news conference announcing the deaths in the Saturday evening strikes.

The Libyan strongman and his wife were in the building that was hit, but were not harmed, Ibrahim said, though others present were killed or wounded in what he deemed “a direct operation to assassinate the leader of this country.”
“The leader himself is in good health; he wasn’t harmed. His wife is also in good health; she wasn’t harmed, (but) other people were injured,” he added.

Ibrahim later said intelligence on Gaddafi’s whereabouts appeared to have been “leaked.”
“They knew about him being there, or expected him for some reason,” the spokesman said.

Nato said it had staged airstrikes in Tripoli but did not confirm the Libyan claims. There was no immediate confirmation of the deaths either. At least three missiles had been heard exploding loudly over the capital earlier as jets flew overhead.

The transatlantic military alliance “continued its precision strikes against Gaddafi  regime military installations in Tripoli overnight, including striking a known command and control building in the Bab al-Azizya neighbourhood shortly after 1800 GMT yesterday evening,” a statement said.

Automatic gunfire, apparently in mourning, echoed across the capital following the announcement, while state TV showed flag-waving demonstrators whom it said turned out to mourn Seif al-Arab’s death.

Overjoyed rebels fired rockets, Kalashnikovs, TNT and 12.5 anti-aircraft machine guns for more than a half an hour, rocking the rebel capital of Benghazi with sustained gunfire and explosions to mark the moment.

“They are so happy that Gaddafi lost his son in an air strike that they are shooting in celebration,” said Colonel Ahmed Omar Bani, military spokesman of the Libyan opposition Transitional National Council (TNC) headquartered in the eastern city.
Cars whizzed by the seafront beeping their horns as people shouted “God is greatest” below a night sky lit up by red tracer fire.

Ibrahim had earlier taken journalists to the remnants of a heavily damaged house in Tripoli, hinting but not explicitly indicating this was the one in which Gaddafi ‘s son had died.

Long, twisted rods of reinforcing steel bars stuck out of large chunks of blasted concrete lay in and around the structure. In some areas, the roof had caved in completely and walls had collapsed. A thick layer of dark grey dust covered the grounds.

Given the level of destruction, it was unclear that anyone could have survived, raising the possibility that if Gaddafi  was there, he had left beforehand.Nato vowed to stage more strikes, though the commander of Nato’s Operation Unified Protector stressed that “we do not target individuals.”

“All Nato’s targets are military in nature and have been clearly linked to the... regime’s systematic attacks on the Libyan population and populated areas,” added Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard.
In a speech on state television yesterday, Gaddafi had said Nato “must abandon all hope of his departure.”
Artical source:-
googletrends.com

When it comes to the Royal Wedding, U.S. media outlets have out-published the Brits, according to The Nielsen Company, which analyzed online buzz in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia following the announcement of the engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton in November 2010. The study of buzz on social media (blogs, message boards/groups) and traditional media finds that while the United Kingdom creates the greater overall level of consumer buzz about the Royal Wedding, the United States has the highest share of news coverage by traditional news sources, such as the online versions of newspapers and magazines.

U.S. News Media Take the Crown

Since the couple’s November 2010 engagement, there have been thousands of news posts about the Royal Wedding and its participants by U.S. news outlets, accounting for more than .3% of all news coverage immediately following the engagement and a steady stream of articles since. This share of news coverage from traditional media sources is considerably higher than in the U.K. and Australia. Given the varied number of news outlets, the share of news coverage is the best metric for comparison among the three markets; the share of news coverage by U.S. news outlets is more than twice that in the United Kingdom and Australia at the most recent measurement on April 3.

Kate vs. Prince William

Though Kate has received considerable interest online, Prince William continues to be the more popular subject of social media discussion in the United Kingdom, both by buzz volume and share of all buzz. William is also mentioned more often in the United States and Australia.
Overall the U.K. makes up a larger share of buzz about the Royal Wedding and its participants, while the more populous U.S. market had a greater volume of buzz since the engagement was announced.
Note: For the purposes of this analysis, Social Media use is defined as buzz from blogs and message boards/groups. Traditional Media includes posts/updates from the online counterparts of print and broadcast news outlets, online news publishers, industry publications, and wire services.
Article Source:- 
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/royal-wedding-buzz/

ABC News invites you to witness Prince William and Catherine Middleton exchange wedding vows after nearly a decade of courtship.
From Buckingham Palace, Diane Sawyer and Barbara Walters will anchor live coverage of the royal wedding on the ABC television network starting at 4 a.m. ET.
If you aren't near a television, no need to worry. Catch ABC's live broadcast everywhere we are: ABCNews.com, ABC News' Facebook page, your mobile phone and on the ABC News app for iPad.
ABC News is your front row seat to the royal wedding. Don't forget to visit ABCNews.com where you can watch and share your favorite videos from the best moments of the day, sign the royal guestbook to leave a note for William and Catherine and view photos from the royal wedding in our slideshows.
Plus, join the conversation and interact with ABC News on Facebook and Twitter.
David Muir will be on-air with the ABC News team to cover your reaction of this historic day. Follow him on Twitter (@DavidMuirABC) and ask him all your royal wedding day questions, share your thoughts on Catherine Middleton's dress and let us know what you think are the best #royalmess and #royalsuccess moments.
Follow @ABCRoyals, the official royal wedding Twitter from ABC News. In the week leading up to William and Catherine's big day, @ABCRoyals will be tweeting the latest royal roundup from London. On April 29th, @ABCRoyals is your source for every detail and headline from the royal wedding, as they're happening.
"Like" ABC News on Facebook to vote and tell us what you think about Queen Elizabeth's hat, the sure to be infamous wedding gown, what could go wrong at the wedding, and much more.
On Friday night, ABC News will continue to be your all access pass for all of the wedding details. Watch a special 20/20 with Barbara Walters 9/8c on ABC.
Article Source:-
http://a.abcnews.com/images/GMA/abc_royalprom_110415_wg.jpg