A price cut on this property way up on Round Hill Road, which is a pity: such a great , 1742 house deserves better

/

640 Round Hill Road, originally listed at $8 million, has been dropped to $6.9.

Built by Charles Green* —1710-1800 — a history of the house can be found here:

Charles Green House

640 Round Hill Road, Greenwich, CT 

LOCAL HISTORIC PROPERTY

Build : c1742, 1952, 1957  |  Protected : 2005

Located in the rural Round Hill section of Greenwich, Connecticut, just south of the New York State line, the Charles Green House is an extended 1½ story dwelling that consists of three clapboard-sided sections surmounted with wood-shingles, gabled roofs; the four-bay, saltbox-roofed main core, the five-bay connector extending to the north, and the four-bay or “Plainfield” wing which extends to the west. The main core is composed of the original three-bay dwelling built c1742 and a one-bay western extension constructed in 1952. The connector, extending northerly from the extension, comprises a two-bay southern section also built in 1952 and a three-bay northern section that was erected in 1957 with the adjacent Plainfield wing.

Architectural Significance

The Charles Green House is architecturally significant primarily because of its original c1742 core and its 18th century barn, and secondarily for its sensitive mid-20th century additions that incorporated salvaged elements from a number of structures, mostly colonial in origin. The original core is significant in general as one of the town’s best examples of a pre-Revolutionary house, and more specifically, as the premier example of the 1½ story saltbox, a transitional, 18th century building type, previously unrecognized as such, which incorporates English and Dutch methods of construction and design.

The secondary significance of the house’s additions and alterations are not readily apparent from the street and defer to the main dwelling. The additions are significant for the various elements salvaged from demolished structures, principally a Colonial house in Plainfield, Connecticut (added in 1952) and the Peter Ferris House in Greenwich (reputedly built in 1763 but demolished in 1957 because it was in the path of the new route of U.S. 1).

*Brief Life History of Charles Green

When Charles Green was born on 25 April 1710, in Stamford, Fairfield, Connecticut, United States, his father, Benjamin Green, was 11707 [that was probably his Zip Code, not his age — ED]and his mother, Hesther Clements, was 41. He married Abigail Finch about 1733, in Fairfield, Connecticut, United States. They were the parents of at least 2 sons and 3 daughters. He died in 1800, in Greenwich, Fairfield, Connecticut, United States, at the age of 90.

A great sound and fury, signifying nothing

/

Admittedly, it’s difficult, even impossible to wage war when the country’s opposing political party, including its meda branch, a quarter of your own party and 65% of the country is howling for it to end, but Trump’s repeated vows to stop Iran’s nuclear program, support for terrorism and its attacks on Israel, and his countless boasts that “peace is at hand:, only to cave on everything in the end, thereby proving his critics right, and adopting as his own strategy Vermont’s Senator Aiken suggested as the path to ending the Vietnam war: “declare victory and get out”, is … disappointing.

Posted on June 15, 2026 by Scott Johnson

Waiting for memo

President Trump has announced the completion of an interim deal with Iran. The deal is reflected in a memorandum of understanding that has yet to be made public by the White House. Perhaps that is because the deal will not be signed until Friday (in Switzerland). Perhaps that is because a wrinkle or two remain to be “ironed out,” as the Wall Street Journal puts it in paragraph six its story (“One senior U.S. official said that while the U.S. was hopeful a formal deal would be struck this week, there were still some details to be ironed out”). According to the Journal, “final details” will be worked on “in the coming days…”

The leading feature of the deal reported at this time is the restoration of the status quo ante in the Strait of Hormuz. It doesn’t smell like victory. It reeks of desperation. According to Trump at the time, the April ceasefire was “subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz.” Query how many times the Persians get to sell us the same rug.

The roles of Pakistan and Qatar in arranging the pending deal also seem like a hint that the terms represent something less than a win for the United States. The reported structure of the deal as a 60-day ceasefire is yet another hint that the terms favor Iran. They are playing for time and “playing us for suckers,” as Trump himself put it a few days ago.

According to the Journal:

The agreement is believed to pave the way for a 60-day period of negotiations over Tehran’s controversial nuclear program, which the U.S. suspects could be used to develop a nuclear weapon. In exchange for curbs on the program, Iran expects access to billions of dollars of cash blocked abroad and an end to sanctions that have stifled its economy….

Trump said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Sunday that the deal includes an agreement from Iran not to obtain nuclear weapons. But there was no mention of this in his social-media posts late Sunday. Trump also expressed no urgency to extract nuclear material from Iran, saying that could come later.

“We’ll get the nuclear dust later on when we’re ready to go in and do it. I’d say over the next month or two, there’s no rush,” he said in the interview. He called it “harmless.”

Trump said he wasn’t as concerned about changing Iran’s regime as some of his critics.

“As far as regime change, I never cared about regime change. This is the third group we’ve dealt with, and this is the most rational group yet,” Trump said.

JohnsonL “At this point Trump speaks more highly of the Iranian authorities than he does of our Israeli ally. That too is a hint.”

I hate america

/

Miss Angel Kelly labored as a staff attorney for the NY Port Authority before the Democrats discovered this “three-for-one”: Female, Black, and Asian — and simultaneously her legal acumen and put her on the local bench. The aptitude she displayed on a state district court was enough to get her nominated to the federal judiciary — did I mention she was female, black, and Asian? Confirmed, barely, in 2021 by the Democrat majority, she has been busy lately issuing nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration for anything she finds offensive to her sensibilities. She was at it again on Friday.

Biden Judge orders Trump admin to restore National Park changes at sites that ‘disparaged’ US

A federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to restore sites changed under an executive order calling for the nation’s museums, parks and landmarks to not display elements that “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living.”

The preliminary injunction issued by US District Judge Angel Kelley in Massachusetts also orders a pause on any additional changes, writing that the plaintiffs have shown that these efforts are meant “to rewrite the Nation’s history with a white-out pen.”

“History cannot be faithfully told while excluding the experiences of communities whose contributions, struggles, and achievements form an important part of our Nation’s story,” the judge wrote.

The Trump administration must also provide a status report every week describing the progress they’ve made with these changes, the judge wrote.

Here’s how the Associated Press “reports” the story with its own particular slant we’ve all come to know and admire:

The order comes in response to a February lawsuit filed by conservation and historical organizations over National Park Service policies that the groups say have forced park service staff to remove or censor dozens of exhibits that share factually accurate and relevant US history and scientific knowledge, including about slavery and climate change.

What? No gay pride flags in front of basalt bubbles? The outrage!

Other changes included removing a sign at Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument in Arizona describing basalt bubbles because it had an image of a visitor holding a Pride flag while films on labor history were removed from the Lowell National Historical Park in Massachusetts.

Here’s a different take, from PowerLine’s John Hinderaker:

Anti-Americanism: It’s the Law!

That’s what one federal judge says, anyway. In May 2025, implementing an Executive Order by President Trump, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum directed the National Parks to do several things. First, to “identify any public monuments, memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties…on lands within its jurisdiction that have been removed or changed from January 1, 2020, through the date of this Order…” and determine whether such “alteration or removal of each property was made to perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history; inappropriately minimize the value of certain historical events or figures; or include any other improper partisan ideology.” If so, the status quo ante the Biden administration was to be restored.

Further, to “review…all public monuments, memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties on lands within its jurisdiction to identify whether any such properties contain images, descriptions, depictions, messages, narratives or other information (content) that inappropriately disparages Americans past or living (including persons living in colonial times), or, with respect to content describing natural features, that emphasizes matters unrelated to the beauty, abundance, or grandeur of said natural feature.” Such inappropriate–i.e., anti-American–content was to be removed.

This was too much for the Democratic Party. In a collusive lawsuit, a Democratic Party district court judge in Massachusetts enjoined implementation of Burgum’s order. So the national parks must disparage America, and anything done by the Biden administration cannot be undone by the Trump administration.

Is that really the law? Of course not. Law professor Ilan Wurman comments:

And all these people are still out there, plotting and manipulating

/

covid lockdown

The revelations six years later are pouring out so quickly that it is impossible to keep up much less mentally process all this:

* The Director of National Intelligence has documented 120 US-funded/owned biolabs in 30 countries many of which are manufacturing and manipulating infectious diseases.

* Senator Rand Paul's committee has released the receipts concerning US funding/backing of the manufactured SARS-CoV-2 virus/vaccine as part of this program.

* Senator Johnson has produced definitive evidence that US public health agencies knew of the grave dangers of the shot to everyone but said nothing.

[FWIW. Here’s the real kicker] :

* Many officials are privately admitting/proving that the whole point of lockdowns was to preserve population immunity for the shot and block other avenues toward wellness.

* Hardly any of this makes the national news and one wonders if the public mind has any awareness at all.

No-Arm Football Has Invaded the Land — Call ICE, Then Seal the Borders!

/

We’re Americans, we don’t do soccer, thank you very much: Why America is still immune to the soccer virus.

It’s World Cup time again, and Americans from Bangor to Batavia don’t even bother to stifle their quadrennial yawns, while more fervent patriots are praying to the God who adjudicates sporting events that the US team flames out early, as usual. 

​It’s been 32 years since the World Cup first tainted American soil. The 1994 invasion was a colossal flop, despite the corporate subsidies lavished by Coca-Cola, Mastercard and the usual suspects. The title game – oh, excuse me: match – a thrilling 0-0 tie in regulation between Brazil and Italy, did not win millions of new fans.

​The indifference of Americans to the World Cup will be ascribed to our provincialism and ignorance of the wider world, but in fact it owes more to good old-fashioned American stubbornness and the vestigial resistance to homogenization that produced, for instance, the popular rejection of the metric system. No doubt there are pockets of enthusiasm for the tournament: dweebs in what my friend Jason Peters calls Silly Con Valley are likely to be extra amorous with their AI girlfriends should the USA defeat Paraguay in the home team’s opener.

​….

Teams of savages have kicked balls (or enemies’ skulls) toward goals since time began, but the English codified soccer in the mid-19th century. The game then was spread throughout the world by British tradesmen, soldiers and missionaries. In India, Egypt, South Africa and elsewhere, soccer was taken up by local elites eager to mimic the Brits. Indigenous games fell before the sinister black-and-white ball. Soccer, as sports historian Bill Murray writes, was the British Empire’s “most enduring export.” The fabled “sport of the dispossessed,” as proto-wokesters dubbed it for its popularity in the Third World, is in fact a legacy of British imperialism.

Soccer was introduced to the Middle East by British oil workers. The Shah of Iran pushed it as a tool of westernization (and Iran are playing in this year’s World Cup, despite the bombing ongoing).

So soccer is the sport of imperialists and their quisling collaborators: a good description of Mr. Trump and the hair-doed harridans of Fox, the TV network that shelled out almost half a billion dollars for the privilege of boring English-speaking Americans for the next six weeks. At least it gives the Foxes a break from cheerleading for the War of the Week.

To the consternation of the perpetually consternated, the soccer virus has never infected Americans. The game was played in a few immigrant-heavy New England textile towns in the nineteenth century, but the sons of these immigrants learned to play wholesome American sports such as baseball and real football. In 1924, Thomas Cahill, secretary of the US Football Association, predicted that his European enthusiasm soon would “rank only second to baseball as the leading pro game,” but Americans remained so indifferent that Cahill’s association eventually gave up its preferred name and accepted the demeaning term “soccer.”

Why did soccer fail in our land? Setting aside the obvious fact that it is excruciating to watch, the usual explanation is its foreignness. Local clubs of the 1930s and 40s had such unlovely monikers as the Chicago Croatians and the San Pedro Yugoslavians. Not exactly the Yankees. Even today, prominent “American” players are often foreign mercenaries whose patriotism is no thicker than an American Express card.

In 1943, TIME asserted that the “US lack of interest [in soccer] is due mainly to US distaste for sitting outdoors in wintry winds and sleet,” which does not explain why Green Bay’s Lambeau Field and Buffalo’s Highmark Stadium are packed on December Sundays.

In 1952, the secretary of the National Federation of Secondary Schools ventured, “It’s hard to interest American kids in a sport in which they can’t use their hands.” Why Americans should be more attached to their hands than the Brits are he did not explain.

Two US professional leagues were launched in 1967. Fewer than one percent of the players in the larger of the two leagues were American. Teams sent their players and coaches to Berlitz classes to learn English, but their efforts were for naught. CBS actually broadcast several games, but the handful of fans were aghast when it was revealed that players had been instructed to feign injuries in order to make time for commercials.

The North American Soccer League prospered for a mayfly’s life in the 1970s, thanks largely to the aptly named Cosmos team of New York City (actually New Jersey), which featured the legendary Brazilian Pelé. The likes of Elton John and Henry Kissinger promoted the NASL, but hale and hearty hicks snubbed the cosmopolitan sport. As one Tulsa, Oklahoma, cabbie told a reporter when asked why he didn’t follow the NASL’s Tulsa Roughnecks, soccer is for guys “in short pants, a Communist game, too slow and boring.”

After half a century of incessant corporate promotion of soccer as the next big thing, the game has yet to achieve much spectatorial cachet outside of hipster enclaves. An alarming number of small children have followed the Pied Piper onto the soccer fields of suburbia, but most come to their senses once puberty hits.

I doubt that even an historic run by the American squad in this World Cup would inspire an outbreak of soccer fever, but just in case:

Go Paraguay!