- Blame Bush: 5 years later, that’s still the mantra, pollsters find
- Dutch prostitutes demand same retirement benefits as soccer stars
- John McCain to Harry Reid: I’ll ‘kick the crap’ out of you
- Dogs that talk: Researchers seek $10K for ‘No More Woof’ technology
- 1,000 firefighters called to battle stubborn Big Sur wildfire
- Black Friday brouhaha: Millions of Target shoppers hit by credit card theft
- Britain orders airplane to rescue citizens from violent South Sudan
- Mega Millions winner emerges as Georgia mom, in ‘disbelief’
- ‘Duck Dynasty’ Phil Robertson suspended ‘indefinitely’ for gay quip
- John Podesta eats crow: ‘I apologize to Speaker Boehner’
By Andrew P. Napolitano
Fourth Amendment says Obama is not at liberty to collect metadata
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Topic - British East India Company
The East India Company (also the East India Trading Company, English East India Company, and then the British East India Company) was an early English joint-stock company that was formed initially for pursuing trade with the East Indies, but that ended up trading mainly with the Indian subcontinent and China. The oldest among several similarly formed European East India Companies, the Company was granted an English Royal Charter, under the name Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies, by Elizabeth I on 31 December 1600.[http://books.google.com/books?id=sc0NAAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0 The Register of Letters &c. of the Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies, 1600–1619]. On page 3, a letter written by Elizabeth I on 23 January 1601 ("Witnes or selfe at Westminster the xxiiijth of Ianuarie in the xliijth yeare of or Reigne.") states, "Haue been pleased to giue lysence vnto or said Subjects to proceed in the said voiadgs, & for the better inabling them to establish a trade into & from the said East Indies Haue by or tres Pattents vnder or great seale of England beareing date at Westminster the last daie of december last past incorporated or said Subjecte by the name of the Gournor & Companie of the merchaunts of London trading into the East Indies, & in the same tres Pattents haue geven them the sole trade of theast Indies for the terme of XVteen yeares ..." After a rival English company challenged its monopoly in the late 17th century, the two companies were merged in 1708 to form the United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, commonly styled the Honourable East India Company, and abbreviated, HEIC; and in India as Company Bahadur (Hindustani bahādur, "brave"/"authority"). - Source: Wikipedia
Until recently, Nicola Phillips notes, "profligacy" was not a word much used in modern times, though it was a 19th-century British parent's worst nightmare. Now, with the recent financial crisis, the ease of obtaining credit and peer pressure to purchase goods that might otherwise be unaffordable, "profligacy" is a term that suits our era, so much so that this gem of a book provides a cautionary tale.
If you asked the average American what he thinks when you say the word "empire," he'd probably say something about exploitation, oppression and the heavy hand of intrusive government - a leviathan-like state we're steering toward yet desperately need to avoid.
For three centuries commencing about 1600, much of the world's commerce was controlled by what one could call "privatized imperialism" in the form of six privately owned trading companies granted state monopolies and operating beyond any independent control.
The year 2010 has been rough on the reputation of Sir Winston Churchill, the wartime leader of Great Britain. In the spring, "Winston's War," a book by the respected military writer Max Hastings tore so many holes in Churchill's reputation as a strategist that one reviewer wondered that had he died in 1942, "Germany might have been defeated sooner."