Here we have another Democrat who voted for something the people did not want, something that was plainly bad for the Republic, and is now running from the consequences of that vote. So much for Character! This guy is another Gutless piece of crap!!!!! You can't stand the heat, Stupak? Stay out of the kitchen and stop cooking up a mess.
Michigan's Dem. Rep. Stupak retiring after 9 terms
By JOHN FLESHER, Associated Press Writer John Flesher, Associated Press Writer
MARQUETTE, Mich. – Rep. Bart Stupak, an anti-abortion Democrat targeted for defeat by tea party activists for his role in securing House approval of the health care overhaul, said Friday he's retiring after 18 years in Congress now that his main legislative goal has been accomplished.
Stupak said at a news conference that he decided within the last 36 hours not to seek a 10th term. He said he had considered retirement for years but was persuaded to stay because of the prospect of serving with a Democratic majority and helping win approval of the health care overhaul.
"I believe every American has a right to health care," Stupak said. "We did it."
Stupak, 58, told The Associated Press earlier that he believed he could have won re-election. He insists he wasn't being chased from the race by the Tea Party Express, which is holding rallies this week in his northern Michigan district calling for his ouster.
"I've struggled with this decision. I've wanted to leave a couple of times, but I always thought there was one more job to be done," Stupak said at the news conference. "Either I'll run again and be there forever, or it's time to make the break and move on."
His decision comes amid a string of recent retirements by Democrats, including Reps. William Delahunt of Massachusetts and Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, and Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota.
Three little-known hopefuls are seeking the GOP nomination for Stupak's seat, and he faced a primary challenge from a Democrat who supports abortion rights. Stupak said he was tired after 18 years in office and wanted to spend more time with his family.
He said he's committed to helping Democrats retain the seat and that his announcement gives other Democratic hopefuls time to organize and get their names on the primary election ballot before the May 11 filing deadline.
He also mentioned threats he has received because of his stance on various issues.
"The three o'clock in the morning phone calls, that's people outside the district," he said. "That's not my district. I know these folks. They wouldn't do that. You sort of just ignore it and move on."
Stupak said the decision whether to retire was the main topic of conversation when he, his wife and son traveled to the NCAA Final Four to cheer on Michigan State.
"It allowed my family — the three of us — to sit down," he said. "There's a lot of windshield time between Menominee and Indianapolis."
A political moderate, Stupak is known for an independent streak that sometimes put him at odds with his party's leadership. He voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement and an assault weapons ban in the 1990s, despite appeals from then-President Bill Clinton.
During the health care debate, Stupak emerged as spokesman and chief negotiator for Democrats who withheld support from Obama's plan because they feared it would allow public funding of abortions.
At one point, Texas Republican Rep. Randy Neugebauer shouted out "baby killer" during a floor speech by Stupak.
Just hours before the vote, Stupak reached an agreement with the White House under which President Barack Obama would issue an executive order confirming that the legislation would not allow federal funding of abortion. With that, Stupak and other anti-abortion Democrats voted for the bill, sealing its passage.
Since then, Stupak has become a symbol for critics of the overhaul. The Tea Party Express labeled him its No. 2 target for defeat after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
"The surprising announcement that Congressman Bart Stupak is abandoning his campaign for re-election shows the power of the tea party movement," said a statement posted Friday on the group's Web site.
Stupak was the first "casualty" of the health care overhaul vote, Michigan Republican Party Chairman Ron Weiser said in a statement.
Michigan's 1st District is notoriously difficult turf for anyone trying to unseat the incumbent. Measuring 600 miles wide, it encompasses about half the state's land mass — including the entire Upper Peninsula — and has no major media market. The largest city, Marquette, where Stupak announced his retirement, has about 20,000 residents.
Stupak has routinely won re-election by wide margins, defeating former state Rep. Tom Casperson with 65 percent of the vote in 2008.
He acknowledged the criticism he received over the health care overhaul had taken a toll, but said he had thrived during the debate. What wore him down, he said, was the grind of constant travel across his sprawling district.
Stupak said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer had urged him to seek re-election. Republicans represented his rural, blue-collar district for nearly three decades before he won in 1992, and his departure will create a strong opportunity for the GOP.
He said a moderate Democrat would have a good chance.
"There are a lot of great Democratic elected officials and activists throughout the entire district. I'm confident we'll have a very strong candidate," said Mark Brewer, chairman of Michigan Democratic Party.
Democrat Connie Saltonstall, an ex-teacher and ex-Charlevoix County commissioner, was endorsed last month by the National Organization for Women in her bid to win the 1st District seat.
"This retirement presents Republicans with a very promising opportunity heading into the November elections," said Tom Erickson, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. They're certainly going to have a tough time trying to hold on to this seat."
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!
Friday, April 9, 2010
A Public Service Announcement From The CDC (In Case You Missed It)
Important information from the CDC about Gonorrhea Lectim
The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of this old disease. The disease is called Gonorrhea Lectim. It's pronounced "Gonna re-elect 'em."
The disease is contracted through dangerous and high risk behavior involving putting your cranium up your rectum. Many victims contracted it in 2008...but now most people, after having been infected for the past 1-2 years, are starting to realize how destructive this sickness is.
It's sad because Gonorrhea Lectim is easily cured with a new drug just coming on the market called Votemout. You take the first dose in 2010 and the second dose in 2012 and simply don't engage in such behavior again; otherwise, it could become permanent and eventually wipe out all life as we know it. Several states are already on top of this, like Virginia and New Jersey , and apparently now Massachusetts , with many more seeing the writing on the wall. Please pass this important message on to all those bright folk you really care about.
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention
The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of this old disease. The disease is called Gonorrhea Lectim. It's pronounced "Gonna re-elect 'em."
The disease is contracted through dangerous and high risk behavior involving putting your cranium up your rectum. Many victims contracted it in 2008...but now most people, after having been infected for the past 1-2 years, are starting to realize how destructive this sickness is.
It's sad because Gonorrhea Lectim is easily cured with a new drug just coming on the market called Votemout. You take the first dose in 2010 and the second dose in 2012 and simply don't engage in such behavior again; otherwise, it could become permanent and eventually wipe out all life as we know it. Several states are already on top of this, like Virginia and New Jersey , and apparently now Massachusetts , with many more seeing the writing on the wall. Please pass this important message on to all those bright folk you really care about.
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention
Colonel Davey Crockett & Character - Any Wonder Why He Is A Legend?
This is a striking story of Character and Honor and Integrity; of Hunility and Personal Growth. But what struck me even more, and of which I grieve today, is the loss of political awareness that all people had back then, which allowed them to keep their elected officials in check. People back then were just as busy as we are. So how did we lose that awareness, and when? Is there a chance we could ever get it back? And by doing so, once again control those people aspiring to control us? Have the floodgates been opened so wide that we have lost our Republic forever? Is it worth the fight to restore her? I know what i think, but you decide...
SOCKDOLAGER—A Tale of Davy Crockett, Charity and Congress
April 9, 2010 by Bob Livingston
A "sockdolager" is a knock-down blow. This is a newspaper reporter’s captivating story of his unforgettable encounter with the old "Bear Hunter" from Tennessee.
From "The Life of Colonel David Crockett", by Edward S. Ellis
(Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CROCKETT was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.
I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support—rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:
"Mr. Speaker—I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.
We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount.
There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt.
The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity.
Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.
Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.
I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:
"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."
He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said: "Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."
I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVERAL YEARS AGO I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.
The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.
The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.
So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."
He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."
I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and…"
"’Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’
This was a sockdolager… I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."
"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."
"No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"
"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."
"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"
Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:
"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government.
So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.
No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give.
The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."
I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:
"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."
I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."
He laughingly replied:
"Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."
"If I don’t," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."
"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday a week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."
"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye… I must know your name."
"My name is Bunce."
"Not Horatio Bunce?"
"Yes."
"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."
We shook hands and parted.
It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.
I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him—no, that is not the word—I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
But to return to my story: The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted—at least, they all knew me.
In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
"Fellow citizens—I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."
I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."
He came upon the stand and said:
"Fellow citizens—It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."
He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.
"NOW, SIR," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.
"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men—men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased—a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!
SOCKDOLAGER—A Tale of Davy Crockett, Charity and Congress
April 9, 2010 by Bob Livingston
A "sockdolager" is a knock-down blow. This is a newspaper reporter’s captivating story of his unforgettable encounter with the old "Bear Hunter" from Tennessee.
From "The Life of Colonel David Crockett", by Edward S. Ellis
(Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CROCKETT was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.
I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support—rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:
"Mr. Speaker—I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.
We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount.
There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt.
The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity.
Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.
Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.
I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:
"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."
He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said: "Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."
I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVERAL YEARS AGO I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.
The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.
The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.
So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."
He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."
I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and…"
"’Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’
This was a sockdolager… I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."
"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."
"No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"
"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."
"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"
Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:
"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government.
So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.
No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give.
The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."
I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:
"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."
I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."
He laughingly replied:
"Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."
"If I don’t," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."
"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday a week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."
"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye… I must know your name."
"My name is Bunce."
"Not Horatio Bunce?"
"Yes."
"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."
We shook hands and parted.
It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.
I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him—no, that is not the word—I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
But to return to my story: The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted—at least, they all knew me.
In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
"Fellow citizens—I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."
I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."
He came upon the stand and said:
"Fellow citizens—It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."
He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.
"NOW, SIR," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.
"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men—men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased—a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!
Honor And Integrity; You'll No Longer Find Them In Congress
To have lived back then...
Davy Crockett and the U.S. Constitution
April 9, 2010 by Chip Wood
When you hear the name “Davy Crockett,” what do you think of? If you’re of “a certain age,” as the more diplomatic among us like to say, you probably think of Fess Parker wearing a coonskin cap. The incredibly popular television program in which he starred had every boy in America (and a few girls, too) clamoring for their own buckskin jacket and coonskin cap.
A few years later John Wayne played Davy Crockett in the film The Alamo, laying down his life at the Alamo for the cause of Texas’ independence. About the same time the Kingston Trio had a hit with a song called “Remember the Alamo.” I can still remember most of the lyrics.
But before the events portrayed in the movie and the television show, the famed frontiersman served for a couple of terms in the United States Congress—from 1827 to 1831 and again from 1833 to 1835. After his defeat in the 1834 election he said, “I told the people of my district that I would serve them faithfully as I had done; but if not… you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.” He eventually did, and died on March 6, 1836, when the Alamo finally fell to Mexican troops after an 11-day siege.
It is an episode from his time in Congress that I want to tell you about today. Davy himself first told the tale, in a speech on the floor of the House that he later reprinted under the title “Sockdolager!”
A “sockdolager” is one of those slap-your-forehead moments, when something suddenly becomes blindingly clear to you. That’s how Davy felt when he came to realize that his understanding of the U.S. Constitution was sadly lacking. Here’s what happened.
Near the end of his first term, Davy decided to visit the western edge of his district to see how much support he’d get if he decided to seek reelection. To appreciate how different campaigning was back then, let me quote the beginning of Davy’s tale:
“So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddle-bags and put out. I had been out about a week, and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence.”
Can you believe it? No fancy entourage, no public relations flacks paving the way, no reporters covering the scene. Not even a buggy with a suitcase or two; it was just Davy, a horse, and a couple of saddle-bags. Life sure was different back then, wasn’t it?
Davy introduces himself to the farmer and says, “I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and ….”
Before he could continue, the man interrupted and said, “Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before and voted for you the last time you were elected. I supposed you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.”
Needless to say, the young congressman is surprised and asks the man why on earth not. The farmer replies, “You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case, you are not the man to represent me.”
As Davy says, when he later related the story on the floor of Congress, “This was a sockdolager!” I told the man, “There must be some mistake, for I do not remember that I gave my vote last winter upon any constitutional question.” The man replies, “No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the back woods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?”
Crockett replies, “Certainly it is. And I thought that was the last vote for which anybody in the world would have found fault with.”
Then comes the classic denouement: “Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?”
Let me pick up the rest of this part of the story, exactly as Davy Crockett told it on the floor of Congress: “Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said: ‘“Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’
I’d love to share the farmer’s entire response with you, but I don’t have room here. Instead, let me do two things. First, let me direct you to Davy Crockett’s complete speech. Personal Liberty Digest has created a special link to “Sockdolager!” by Davy Crockett. To see it, just click here. (And while you’re there, why not send it to a few dozen of your friends?)
Second, let me go right to the farmer’s concluding remarks. He told the congressman, “When Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people.”
Davy has no choice but to acknowledge the truth of what he’s heard. He tells the man, ‘“Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard.
“If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote, and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.”
What are the chances, ladies and gentlemen, that your congressman would ever make such an admission—or such a speech—today?
You really should read the rest of the story. You’ll be delighted to learn that when Congressman Crockett gets back to Washington, the House has taken up a bill to appropriate money for the wife of a distinguished naval officer. Everyone who has spoken about it has declared himself in favor. It looks like it will pass unanimously when Davy Crockett takes the floor.
To read what he says, and what happens next, please click here to enjoy Davy Crockett’s “Sockdolager!”
And remember the story the next time your congressman votes to take your money for some government activity that is nowhere to be found in our Constitution.
Until next Friday, keep some powder dry. — Chip Wood
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!
Davy Crockett and the U.S. Constitution
April 9, 2010 by Chip Wood
When you hear the name “Davy Crockett,” what do you think of? If you’re of “a certain age,” as the more diplomatic among us like to say, you probably think of Fess Parker wearing a coonskin cap. The incredibly popular television program in which he starred had every boy in America (and a few girls, too) clamoring for their own buckskin jacket and coonskin cap.
A few years later John Wayne played Davy Crockett in the film The Alamo, laying down his life at the Alamo for the cause of Texas’ independence. About the same time the Kingston Trio had a hit with a song called “Remember the Alamo.” I can still remember most of the lyrics.
But before the events portrayed in the movie and the television show, the famed frontiersman served for a couple of terms in the United States Congress—from 1827 to 1831 and again from 1833 to 1835. After his defeat in the 1834 election he said, “I told the people of my district that I would serve them faithfully as I had done; but if not… you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.” He eventually did, and died on March 6, 1836, when the Alamo finally fell to Mexican troops after an 11-day siege.
It is an episode from his time in Congress that I want to tell you about today. Davy himself first told the tale, in a speech on the floor of the House that he later reprinted under the title “Sockdolager!”
A “sockdolager” is one of those slap-your-forehead moments, when something suddenly becomes blindingly clear to you. That’s how Davy felt when he came to realize that his understanding of the U.S. Constitution was sadly lacking. Here’s what happened.
Near the end of his first term, Davy decided to visit the western edge of his district to see how much support he’d get if he decided to seek reelection. To appreciate how different campaigning was back then, let me quote the beginning of Davy’s tale:
“So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddle-bags and put out. I had been out about a week, and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence.”
Can you believe it? No fancy entourage, no public relations flacks paving the way, no reporters covering the scene. Not even a buggy with a suitcase or two; it was just Davy, a horse, and a couple of saddle-bags. Life sure was different back then, wasn’t it?
Davy introduces himself to the farmer and says, “I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and ….”
Before he could continue, the man interrupted and said, “Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before and voted for you the last time you were elected. I supposed you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.”
Needless to say, the young congressman is surprised and asks the man why on earth not. The farmer replies, “You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case, you are not the man to represent me.”
As Davy says, when he later related the story on the floor of Congress, “This was a sockdolager!” I told the man, “There must be some mistake, for I do not remember that I gave my vote last winter upon any constitutional question.” The man replies, “No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the back woods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?”
Crockett replies, “Certainly it is. And I thought that was the last vote for which anybody in the world would have found fault with.”
Then comes the classic denouement: “Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?”
Let me pick up the rest of this part of the story, exactly as Davy Crockett told it on the floor of Congress: “Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said: ‘“Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’
I’d love to share the farmer’s entire response with you, but I don’t have room here. Instead, let me do two things. First, let me direct you to Davy Crockett’s complete speech. Personal Liberty Digest has created a special link to “Sockdolager!” by Davy Crockett. To see it, just click here. (And while you’re there, why not send it to a few dozen of your friends?)
Second, let me go right to the farmer’s concluding remarks. He told the congressman, “When Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people.”
Davy has no choice but to acknowledge the truth of what he’s heard. He tells the man, ‘“Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard.
“If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote, and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.”
What are the chances, ladies and gentlemen, that your congressman would ever make such an admission—or such a speech—today?
You really should read the rest of the story. You’ll be delighted to learn that when Congressman Crockett gets back to Washington, the House has taken up a bill to appropriate money for the wife of a distinguished naval officer. Everyone who has spoken about it has declared himself in favor. It looks like it will pass unanimously when Davy Crockett takes the floor.
To read what he says, and what happens next, please click here to enjoy Davy Crockett’s “Sockdolager!”
And remember the story the next time your congressman votes to take your money for some government activity that is nowhere to be found in our Constitution.
Until next Friday, keep some powder dry. — Chip Wood
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!
Let's Put Healthcare On The Back Burner - Until November
Get your pens, faxes and cell phones ready. It's time to start another campaign against the next "sweeping plan to transform America". This time it's about immigration, and legalizing 11-30 million illegal aliens. The result? A brand new voting base for the progressives. Don't let them scam us into believing it's the only way to fix the illegal alien "problem". Ever heard of closing the borders? Deportation? Enforcing immigration laws currently on the books? Oh no, we couldn't do that; we'd be hurting someone's feelings! I've been saying for a long time that Graham and McCain are not our friends. Here's more proof of that. Read what Jeff Mazzella, President of Center for Individual Freedom has to say...
Senators Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer have just joined forces with Barack Obama to move full steam ahead on sweeping new legislation that will grant Amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, and establish a de facto biometric National ID card.
At first, we didn't believe it either. But with the ink barely dry on ObamaCare, it’s now clear that President Obama and some Members of Congress feel emboldened to ram through yet another piece of legislation that the American people overwhelmingly oppose.
Indeed, Senators Schumer and Graham made their intentions clear in an editorial they recently co-authored in The Washington Post.
After acknowledging that they have already met with Barack Obama to discuss their proposed Amnesty scheme, Graham and Schumer write that the pillars to their plan include "requiring biometric Social Security cards... and implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for [illegal aliens]."
If the statement "implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here" sounds familiar... it should. It's almost word-for-word the same "code language" that Graham and Schumer and other pro-Amnesty legislators used repeatedly a couple of years ago for every Amnesty scheme they tried to either sneak past the American people or shove down our throats.
Graham and Schumer apparently believe you have a very short memory. They seem to think that after passing health care, the pro-Amnesty politicians in Washington have momentum on their side... that the American people have lost the will to fight.
It’s time to prove them wrong... before this plan gains any more traction in Congress.
A De Facto National ID Card?
Senators Graham and Schumer, of course, attempt to dispel very legitimate fears that their proposed "biometric Social Security card" would not have a chilling effect on your personal liberties or infringe on the privacy of patriotic Americans. But even their 'assurances' reveal the tyrannical nature their proposal.
They write: "We would require all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who want jobs to obtain a high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security card. Each card's unique biometric identifier would be stored only on the card; no government database would house everyone's information. The cards would not contain any private information, medical information or tracking devices. The card would be a high-tech version of the Social Security card that citizens already have."
Then, in the very next paragraph of their editorial, Graham and Schumer wrote: "Prospective employers would be responsible for swiping the cards through a machine to confirm a person's identity and immigration status. Employers who refused to swipe the card or who otherwise knowingly hired unauthorized workers would face stiff fines and, for repeat offenses, prison sentences."
Now... can someone... anyone... please explain how this whole "swiping" thing is supposed to work if "no government database" will "house everyone's information?"
So... "ALL U.S. citizens" would be "required" to possess a "biometric Social Security card" with "unique identifiers" that would somehow contain no "private information" or "tracking devices" and all employers would be required to swipe these "biometric Social Security cards" through a machine that will match the information on these "biometric Social Security cards" (which contain no "private information" or "tracking devices") to information maintained on a government database which will not "house everyone's information."
Got all that...? In other words, according to Graham and Schumer, they intend to REQUIRE and COMPEL "all" citizens to carry a "biometric Social Security card" to verify BOTH "identity" and "immigration status" and employers who refuse to comply with this government mandate would face stiff prison sentences.
Amnesty For All Is Not Immigration Reform. That's Why We Called It "Scamnesty" Two Years Ago.
Graham, Schumer and other pro-Amnesty forces in Washington will try to convince you that their new-and-improved "Scamnesty" legislation is actually "immigration reform."
They even give lip-service to the concept of controlling our borders and ending illegal immigration by calling for measures that would require illegal aliens to pay "fines" and "back taxes." They also call for "increasing the Border Patrol's staffing and funding for infrastructure and technology."
Specifically, Graham and Schumer state: "For the 11 million immigrants already in this country illegally, we would provide a tough but fair path forward. They would be required to admit they broke the law and to pay their debt to society by performing community service and paying fines and back taxes."
Of course, we’ve heard that song-and-dance before. The original Kennedy-McCain "Scamnesty" plan of 2007 called for these same meaningless provisions.
For example, with regard to the "fines" called for in the original "Scamnesty" bill of 2007, Senator Charles Grassley made the following observation: "Under the bill, an illegal alien can go from illegal to legal by paying a small fine of $2,000. Often, illegal aliens will pay more than five times this amount to a smuggler to get across the border. Also, the $2,000 fine may not have to be paid until year eight, which allows the illegal alien to live, work, and play in the United States for years free from deportation."
Former Senator Rick Santorum essentially said the same thing: "This bill is dangerous precedent and sends a chilling message about our national integrity: America has lost the will to enforce her laws, and her sovereignty is for sale — currently, for around $2,000."
Today's "Scanmesty" proposal brings to mind an old Scottish proverb: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Of course, we weren't fooled then and we shouldn't be fooled now.
The Provision Calling For The Payment Of Back Taxes Was A "Scamnesty" Too.
As for the provisions calling for the payment of "back taxes," here's what Grassley said in reference to the original "Scamnesty" bill of 2007: "Under the bill, illegal aliens get an option to only have to pay three of their last five years in back taxes. Law-abiding American citizens do not have the option to pay some of their taxes. The bill would treat lawbreakers better than the American people."
And moreover, Grassley also warned us back then of the futility of determining the actual tax liability of illegal aliens. It's next to impossible: "The bill also makes the IRS prove that illegal aliens have paid their back taxes. It will be impossible for the IRS to truly enforce this because they cannot audit every single person in this country."
And Grassley's concerns became prophetic because the Bush Administration actually tried to gut those provisions, behind the scenes, using that exact rationale. Back in May of 2007, the Boston Globe reported: "But the administration called for the provision to be removed due to concern that it would be too difficult to figure out which illegal immigrants owed back taxes."
Scott Stanzel, a Bush Administration spokesman, clarified the remark, saying: "It is important that the reformed immigration system is workable and cost efficient. Determining the past tax liability would have been very difficult and costly and extremely time consuming."
And Laura Capps, a spokeswoman for the late-Senator Ted Kennedy, said such a provision "would be too challenging to accurately determine the amount of an applicant's back taxes."
Of course, Graham and Schumer could argue that the past should not be an indicator of future actions, but ask yourself this: has anything changed in the past two years... is it now... somehow... possible... to determine how much an illegal alien would conceivably owe in back taxes?
Of course not. The government, if it maintained the provision at all, would effectively be forced to apply an 'honor system' to people who have already violated our laws by entering the United States illegally in the first place.
'Uhhh... yeahhh... just let us know what you've been making under the table these past several years and pay us the taxes... What's that? ... You didn't make enough to pay taxes... oh... uhhhh... okay... here's your refund check.'
The more things change... the more they stay the same. This Graham-Schumer-Obama "Scamnesty" bill must be stopped now before it ever sees the light of day.
Why Not Simply Enforce the Laws Already On the Books?
It doesn’t take a lot of common sense to know that encouraging bad behavior only encourages more bad behavior. Or more pointedly, rewarding more than 11 million people living and working in our great country illegally with U.S. citizenship will only encourage more illegal border crossings.
That’s what happened last time the United States granted Amnesty to illegals – the problem only got worse.
Truth be told, the major reason why there is an illegal immigration problem in the United States is because our government continues to fail to secure the border and enforce the laws we already have on the books.
As Doug Mitchell recently wrote on RedState.com: "Immigration isn’t broken, it’s just not enforced. Of course Obama’s changes don’t mean to start enforcing, rather, offer amnesty to all illegal aliens and essentially securing the 2010 election year."
This plan must be stopped and it must be stopped now... before it gains any more traction in Congress.
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't paying Attention!
Senators Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer have just joined forces with Barack Obama to move full steam ahead on sweeping new legislation that will grant Amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, and establish a de facto biometric National ID card.
At first, we didn't believe it either. But with the ink barely dry on ObamaCare, it’s now clear that President Obama and some Members of Congress feel emboldened to ram through yet another piece of legislation that the American people overwhelmingly oppose.
Indeed, Senators Schumer and Graham made their intentions clear in an editorial they recently co-authored in The Washington Post.
After acknowledging that they have already met with Barack Obama to discuss their proposed Amnesty scheme, Graham and Schumer write that the pillars to their plan include "requiring biometric Social Security cards... and implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for [illegal aliens]."
If the statement "implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here" sounds familiar... it should. It's almost word-for-word the same "code language" that Graham and Schumer and other pro-Amnesty legislators used repeatedly a couple of years ago for every Amnesty scheme they tried to either sneak past the American people or shove down our throats.
Graham and Schumer apparently believe you have a very short memory. They seem to think that after passing health care, the pro-Amnesty politicians in Washington have momentum on their side... that the American people have lost the will to fight.
It’s time to prove them wrong... before this plan gains any more traction in Congress.
A De Facto National ID Card?
Senators Graham and Schumer, of course, attempt to dispel very legitimate fears that their proposed "biometric Social Security card" would not have a chilling effect on your personal liberties or infringe on the privacy of patriotic Americans. But even their 'assurances' reveal the tyrannical nature their proposal.
They write: "We would require all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who want jobs to obtain a high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security card. Each card's unique biometric identifier would be stored only on the card; no government database would house everyone's information. The cards would not contain any private information, medical information or tracking devices. The card would be a high-tech version of the Social Security card that citizens already have."
Then, in the very next paragraph of their editorial, Graham and Schumer wrote: "Prospective employers would be responsible for swiping the cards through a machine to confirm a person's identity and immigration status. Employers who refused to swipe the card or who otherwise knowingly hired unauthorized workers would face stiff fines and, for repeat offenses, prison sentences."
Now... can someone... anyone... please explain how this whole "swiping" thing is supposed to work if "no government database" will "house everyone's information?"
So... "ALL U.S. citizens" would be "required" to possess a "biometric Social Security card" with "unique identifiers" that would somehow contain no "private information" or "tracking devices" and all employers would be required to swipe these "biometric Social Security cards" through a machine that will match the information on these "biometric Social Security cards" (which contain no "private information" or "tracking devices") to information maintained on a government database which will not "house everyone's information."
Got all that...? In other words, according to Graham and Schumer, they intend to REQUIRE and COMPEL "all" citizens to carry a "biometric Social Security card" to verify BOTH "identity" and "immigration status" and employers who refuse to comply with this government mandate would face stiff prison sentences.
Amnesty For All Is Not Immigration Reform. That's Why We Called It "Scamnesty" Two Years Ago.
Graham, Schumer and other pro-Amnesty forces in Washington will try to convince you that their new-and-improved "Scamnesty" legislation is actually "immigration reform."
They even give lip-service to the concept of controlling our borders and ending illegal immigration by calling for measures that would require illegal aliens to pay "fines" and "back taxes." They also call for "increasing the Border Patrol's staffing and funding for infrastructure and technology."
Specifically, Graham and Schumer state: "For the 11 million immigrants already in this country illegally, we would provide a tough but fair path forward. They would be required to admit they broke the law and to pay their debt to society by performing community service and paying fines and back taxes."
Of course, we’ve heard that song-and-dance before. The original Kennedy-McCain "Scamnesty" plan of 2007 called for these same meaningless provisions.
For example, with regard to the "fines" called for in the original "Scamnesty" bill of 2007, Senator Charles Grassley made the following observation: "Under the bill, an illegal alien can go from illegal to legal by paying a small fine of $2,000. Often, illegal aliens will pay more than five times this amount to a smuggler to get across the border. Also, the $2,000 fine may not have to be paid until year eight, which allows the illegal alien to live, work, and play in the United States for years free from deportation."
Former Senator Rick Santorum essentially said the same thing: "This bill is dangerous precedent and sends a chilling message about our national integrity: America has lost the will to enforce her laws, and her sovereignty is for sale — currently, for around $2,000."
Today's "Scanmesty" proposal brings to mind an old Scottish proverb: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Of course, we weren't fooled then and we shouldn't be fooled now.
The Provision Calling For The Payment Of Back Taxes Was A "Scamnesty" Too.
As for the provisions calling for the payment of "back taxes," here's what Grassley said in reference to the original "Scamnesty" bill of 2007: "Under the bill, illegal aliens get an option to only have to pay three of their last five years in back taxes. Law-abiding American citizens do not have the option to pay some of their taxes. The bill would treat lawbreakers better than the American people."
And moreover, Grassley also warned us back then of the futility of determining the actual tax liability of illegal aliens. It's next to impossible: "The bill also makes the IRS prove that illegal aliens have paid their back taxes. It will be impossible for the IRS to truly enforce this because they cannot audit every single person in this country."
And Grassley's concerns became prophetic because the Bush Administration actually tried to gut those provisions, behind the scenes, using that exact rationale. Back in May of 2007, the Boston Globe reported: "But the administration called for the provision to be removed due to concern that it would be too difficult to figure out which illegal immigrants owed back taxes."
Scott Stanzel, a Bush Administration spokesman, clarified the remark, saying: "It is important that the reformed immigration system is workable and cost efficient. Determining the past tax liability would have been very difficult and costly and extremely time consuming."
And Laura Capps, a spokeswoman for the late-Senator Ted Kennedy, said such a provision "would be too challenging to accurately determine the amount of an applicant's back taxes."
Of course, Graham and Schumer could argue that the past should not be an indicator of future actions, but ask yourself this: has anything changed in the past two years... is it now... somehow... possible... to determine how much an illegal alien would conceivably owe in back taxes?
Of course not. The government, if it maintained the provision at all, would effectively be forced to apply an 'honor system' to people who have already violated our laws by entering the United States illegally in the first place.
'Uhhh... yeahhh... just let us know what you've been making under the table these past several years and pay us the taxes... What's that? ... You didn't make enough to pay taxes... oh... uhhhh... okay... here's your refund check.'
The more things change... the more they stay the same. This Graham-Schumer-Obama "Scamnesty" bill must be stopped now before it ever sees the light of day.
Why Not Simply Enforce the Laws Already On the Books?
It doesn’t take a lot of common sense to know that encouraging bad behavior only encourages more bad behavior. Or more pointedly, rewarding more than 11 million people living and working in our great country illegally with U.S. citizenship will only encourage more illegal border crossings.
That’s what happened last time the United States granted Amnesty to illegals – the problem only got worse.
Truth be told, the major reason why there is an illegal immigration problem in the United States is because our government continues to fail to secure the border and enforce the laws we already have on the books.
As Doug Mitchell recently wrote on RedState.com: "Immigration isn’t broken, it’s just not enforced. Of course Obama’s changes don’t mean to start enforcing, rather, offer amnesty to all illegal aliens and essentially securing the 2010 election year."
This plan must be stopped and it must be stopped now... before it gains any more traction in Congress.
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't paying Attention!
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Obama Is Trying To Rewrite History As It's Being Made
Today Newsmax observed that 'Rush Limbaugh used his radio program Wednesday to lash out against President Obama’s plan to censor the word “Islamic radicalism” from a National Security document that deals with threats confronting America.
Obama advisers say the new version emphasizes that the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism.
But the change is a radical shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. It currently states, "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century." '
Anyone who has followed this blog, or cares to look back to earlier posts will find video footage of Islamic indoctrination of children by Islamic Radicals, or if you prefer, Islamic Extremists. The Libs/Progressives are fond of believing that "if they say it, we will believe". But maybe in this case they're of the mind that if they deny it, it can not be. But what they can't deny is fact. And the facts are that Radical Islamic Extremists wish to do us harm. In fact, they have succeeded in doing us harm. So what is the purpose of denying it? It makes Obama look just as weak as he is. It makes America look like we are "afraid" of Islam and the morons that pervert that religion. It makes America look like we are trying to appease them, when it is only Obama and the progressives who wish to do so.
I think we should just obliterate any culture that wishes America harm. Seeing as there is more than one, just prioritize until there is no longer a threat directed at us. It's called survival of the fittest. I prefer to be the fittest. It may seem extreme, but in the long run it will save lives - American lives. And in my opinion, that's what we should be trying to do.
So I ask you Mr. Obama, why the tail-between-the-legs approach with these Islamic idiots? You don't hear any of their own disowning them do you? Or if you do, it's just a tiny sliver of that culture. So grow a set Mr. O, and act like the leader of the free world, will you please? Most of us would appreciate it!
If You Aren't Outraged, You Haven't Been Paying Attention!
Obama advisers say the new version emphasizes that the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism.
But the change is a radical shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. It currently states, "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century." '
Anyone who has followed this blog, or cares to look back to earlier posts will find video footage of Islamic indoctrination of children by Islamic Radicals, or if you prefer, Islamic Extremists. The Libs/Progressives are fond of believing that "if they say it, we will believe". But maybe in this case they're of the mind that if they deny it, it can not be. But what they can't deny is fact. And the facts are that Radical Islamic Extremists wish to do us harm. In fact, they have succeeded in doing us harm. So what is the purpose of denying it? It makes Obama look just as weak as he is. It makes America look like we are "afraid" of Islam and the morons that pervert that religion. It makes America look like we are trying to appease them, when it is only Obama and the progressives who wish to do so.
I think we should just obliterate any culture that wishes America harm. Seeing as there is more than one, just prioritize until there is no longer a threat directed at us. It's called survival of the fittest. I prefer to be the fittest. It may seem extreme, but in the long run it will save lives - American lives. And in my opinion, that's what we should be trying to do.
So I ask you Mr. Obama, why the tail-between-the-legs approach with these Islamic idiots? You don't hear any of their own disowning them do you? Or if you do, it's just a tiny sliver of that culture. So grow a set Mr. O, and act like the leader of the free world, will you please? Most of us would appreciate it!
If You Aren't Outraged, You Haven't Been Paying Attention!
Restoration Or Revolution?
Restoration or Revolution?
By Mark Alexander · Thursday, April 8, 2010
"...with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." --Declaration of Independence
With those words, our Founders codified by signature their intent to establish liberty over tyranny at the great cost of their fortunes and, indeed, their lives. Since that July day in 1776, generations of Patriots have, likewise, committed by oath to Support and Defend the Constitution to which that Declaration gave rise.
As we approach the 235th anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord, the opening salvo of the American Revolution, I am acutely aware that today, too many Americans have grown complacent in comfort; too many are loath to defend the legacy of liberty bequeathed to us by the giants on whose shoulders we rest.
Consequently, we find ourselves in a situation not unlike our Founders, where the equivalent of kings and potentates in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of our central government have treaded willfully upon the most fundamental of rights endowed by our Creator, foremost among these being Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Years before signing the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin wrote, "They that can give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Today, many Americans either unwittingly or even willingly trade Essential Liberty for some measure of safety and comfort. (Note that Franklin, that most erudite of sages, also added the word "temporary" when referring to safety.)
As a nation, as a people, we are at a crossroads, where we must endure a lack of safety to ensure Liberty.
Five decades ago, at another historic intersection, a young conservative who had recently departed the once-noble Democratic Party, issued an enduring challenge to his countrymen.
In his famous 1964 speech, A Time for Choosing, Ronald Reagan declared, "You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ash heap of totalitarianism."
I submit to you that we are now at a far more critical juncture in our nation's history, a juncture that calls for another Patriot Declaration (sign it here), whereby we once again pledge to each other our lives and our fortunes in order to extend Liberty to the next generation.
President Reagan also left us an excellent template for restoring Liberty through the political process -- one based on First Principles.
The time has come again to choose between liberty and tyranny, to sustain Essential Liberty in opposition to statism.
Upon signing the Declaration of Independence, Ben Franklin proclaimed, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
That is equally true today.
If we are to restore Liberty and the integrity of our Constitution, we must do so from the bottom up, a groundswell from the grassroots. Indeed, nothing great and enduring has ever been built from the top down. We must therefore start at the foundation, speaking with one disciplined, determined and unified voice toward one primary objective: the re-establishment of the Rule of Law.
When debating the role of government, we must begin with the First Principles of Liberty.
If we are to succeed, we must understand the principles of Essential Liberty.
I have spent my adult life in defense of, and in humble service to, the cause of freedom, and I have gained a great appreciation for Liberty, primarily as a result of having been in many places where there was no acknowledgement of basic rights to self-determination.
Perhaps the experience that imprinted the greatest appreciation upon me was being arrested in the Soviet Union -- twice. (Call me a slow learner.) There is something about walking through seven heavy doors on the way to a deep pit in the bowels of the Evil Empire that heightens one's love for Liberty.
Of course, that experience pales in comparison to the enormous and moreover, sometimes ultimate sacrifices of other Patriots, but it influenced my perspective nonetheless.
In 2008, Barack Hussein Obama promised his constituents, "This is our moment, this is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, to offer a new direction. We are fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
Obama has clearly delivered on this promise.
If we are to turn back this tide of tyranny, it is important that every American Patriot, every American citizen committed to preserving our constitutional heritage and extending our legacy of Liberty to future generations, understand the difference between Rule of Law and rule of men, and be able to articulate that difference.
Today, I take the unusual step of asking you to support the best means of fostering that understanding for millions of grassroots Patriots.
I ask you first to join the Essential Liberty Project and support The Patriot Foundation Trust and its mission to distribute Essential Liberty Guides to millions of American Patriots across the nation.
Today, in addition to the many ways you already support liberty, please make a tax-deductible contribution to:
Patriot Foundation Trust
PO Box 407
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401-0407
Or you can support Essential Liberty online: Click Here
(Note: The PFT pays no salaries or wages. Every dime of donor revenue is used to further its mission -- the production and distribution of Essential Liberty Guides.)
Second, I ask you to join the 11,000 Patriots who have already signed The Patriot Declaration in the last week.
Fellow Patriots, the time is now for us to restore constitutional integrity and re-secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Thomas Jefferson once declared, "Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them."
Indeed, but too many Americans have become complacent in comfort, unable or unwilling to comprehend that the consequences of foregoing Liberty for refuge are dire.
Jefferson asserted, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Absent a unified front to restore constitutional Rule of Law, that outcome may be inevitable, perhaps through measures of civil disobedience.
Such inevitability is just over the horizon so its form is not clear, but it may be reminiscent of the first tax protest, the Boston Tea Party back in 1773. Given that the central government in this day has no constitutional authority to spend most of the revenue it taxes from us, perhaps a unified peaceful protest would include millions of tax forms being dumped into the nearest harbor -- refusal to pay taxes on constitutional principle.
Those who find the notion of civil disobedience disquieting have already traded Essential Liberty for a little temporary safety, and will most certainly end up with neither. Of such capitulation, one of the original Sons of Liberty, Samuel Adams, had this to say: "Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' ... If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands, which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"
Of course, if you are reading this message, you are not likely among the latter, so please join us in supporting the Essential Liberty Project today.
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't paying Attention!
By Mark Alexander · Thursday, April 8, 2010
"...with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." --Declaration of Independence
With those words, our Founders codified by signature their intent to establish liberty over tyranny at the great cost of their fortunes and, indeed, their lives. Since that July day in 1776, generations of Patriots have, likewise, committed by oath to Support and Defend the Constitution to which that Declaration gave rise.
As we approach the 235th anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord, the opening salvo of the American Revolution, I am acutely aware that today, too many Americans have grown complacent in comfort; too many are loath to defend the legacy of liberty bequeathed to us by the giants on whose shoulders we rest.
Consequently, we find ourselves in a situation not unlike our Founders, where the equivalent of kings and potentates in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of our central government have treaded willfully upon the most fundamental of rights endowed by our Creator, foremost among these being Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Years before signing the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin wrote, "They that can give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Today, many Americans either unwittingly or even willingly trade Essential Liberty for some measure of safety and comfort. (Note that Franklin, that most erudite of sages, also added the word "temporary" when referring to safety.)
As a nation, as a people, we are at a crossroads, where we must endure a lack of safety to ensure Liberty.
Five decades ago, at another historic intersection, a young conservative who had recently departed the once-noble Democratic Party, issued an enduring challenge to his countrymen.
In his famous 1964 speech, A Time for Choosing, Ronald Reagan declared, "You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ash heap of totalitarianism."
I submit to you that we are now at a far more critical juncture in our nation's history, a juncture that calls for another Patriot Declaration (sign it here), whereby we once again pledge to each other our lives and our fortunes in order to extend Liberty to the next generation.
President Reagan also left us an excellent template for restoring Liberty through the political process -- one based on First Principles.
The time has come again to choose between liberty and tyranny, to sustain Essential Liberty in opposition to statism.
Upon signing the Declaration of Independence, Ben Franklin proclaimed, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
That is equally true today.
If we are to restore Liberty and the integrity of our Constitution, we must do so from the bottom up, a groundswell from the grassroots. Indeed, nothing great and enduring has ever been built from the top down. We must therefore start at the foundation, speaking with one disciplined, determined and unified voice toward one primary objective: the re-establishment of the Rule of Law.
When debating the role of government, we must begin with the First Principles of Liberty.
If we are to succeed, we must understand the principles of Essential Liberty.
I have spent my adult life in defense of, and in humble service to, the cause of freedom, and I have gained a great appreciation for Liberty, primarily as a result of having been in many places where there was no acknowledgement of basic rights to self-determination.
Perhaps the experience that imprinted the greatest appreciation upon me was being arrested in the Soviet Union -- twice. (Call me a slow learner.) There is something about walking through seven heavy doors on the way to a deep pit in the bowels of the Evil Empire that heightens one's love for Liberty.
Of course, that experience pales in comparison to the enormous and moreover, sometimes ultimate sacrifices of other Patriots, but it influenced my perspective nonetheless.
In 2008, Barack Hussein Obama promised his constituents, "This is our moment, this is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, to offer a new direction. We are fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
Obama has clearly delivered on this promise.
If we are to turn back this tide of tyranny, it is important that every American Patriot, every American citizen committed to preserving our constitutional heritage and extending our legacy of Liberty to future generations, understand the difference between Rule of Law and rule of men, and be able to articulate that difference.
Today, I take the unusual step of asking you to support the best means of fostering that understanding for millions of grassroots Patriots.
I ask you first to join the Essential Liberty Project and support The Patriot Foundation Trust and its mission to distribute Essential Liberty Guides to millions of American Patriots across the nation.
Today, in addition to the many ways you already support liberty, please make a tax-deductible contribution to:
Patriot Foundation Trust
PO Box 407
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401-0407
Or you can support Essential Liberty online: Click Here
(Note: The PFT pays no salaries or wages. Every dime of donor revenue is used to further its mission -- the production and distribution of Essential Liberty Guides.)
Second, I ask you to join the 11,000 Patriots who have already signed The Patriot Declaration in the last week.
Fellow Patriots, the time is now for us to restore constitutional integrity and re-secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Thomas Jefferson once declared, "Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them."
Indeed, but too many Americans have become complacent in comfort, unable or unwilling to comprehend that the consequences of foregoing Liberty for refuge are dire.
Jefferson asserted, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Absent a unified front to restore constitutional Rule of Law, that outcome may be inevitable, perhaps through measures of civil disobedience.
Such inevitability is just over the horizon so its form is not clear, but it may be reminiscent of the first tax protest, the Boston Tea Party back in 1773. Given that the central government in this day has no constitutional authority to spend most of the revenue it taxes from us, perhaps a unified peaceful protest would include millions of tax forms being dumped into the nearest harbor -- refusal to pay taxes on constitutional principle.
Those who find the notion of civil disobedience disquieting have already traded Essential Liberty for a little temporary safety, and will most certainly end up with neither. Of such capitulation, one of the original Sons of Liberty, Samuel Adams, had this to say: "Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' ... If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands, which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"
Of course, if you are reading this message, you are not likely among the latter, so please join us in supporting the Essential Liberty Project today.
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't paying Attention!
So You Want To Buy An AR-15, Huh?
You might want to check out this link; it's filled with some great information. I apologize in advance to my Massachusetts friends who may not have much luck getting authorization to purchase and carry one of these rifles...
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81462
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81462
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!
Welcome To The VAT; And Legalized Theft Of The American Public By "Their Government"
We Have Got To Throw These Guys Out Of Office At The Very First Opportunity! Our Culture, Our Way Of Life, Perhaps Even Our Very Lives, Depends On It!
Morning Bell: How the Left Really Plans to Pay for Obamacare
Posted April 7th, 2010
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), over half of President Barack Obama’s new $940 billion health care entitlement is paid for by price-fixing Medicare cuts. Never mind that the President’s own Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says that these cuts would cause “roughly 20 percent” of Medicare providers to go bankrupt in Obamacare’s first ten years. The CBO has to believe these cuts will happen because they are required, by law, to believe everything Congress tells them. The American people are not. So the American people ought to know that instead of cutting doctors’ Medicare reimbursement rates by 21% as required by law on April 1, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services froze payments at current levels until Congress could come back after Easter recess and rescind those cuts. Again. As they have done every year but one since the cuts were first enacted in 1997.
This doc fix is big enough that, if it had been included as a cost of Obamacare, it would have sent the President’s bill into the red all by itself. But the half trillion dollars in Medicare cuts used to fund the rest of Obamacare are a much bigger problem. Even if we assume they all go as planned, President Obama’s budget would borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010; would run a $1.6 trillion deficit in 2010; and would leave permanent deficits that top $1 trillion as late as 2020. Add on the half trillion dollars in Medicare cuts that, given Congress’ track record, the American people would be naive to think will ever happen, and the federal government is looking at a pile of new debt.
The left’s solution to this problem has been simmering for some time now. Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) floated the idea to The Washington Post last May. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told Charlie Rose it was “on the table” in October. And yesterday White House adviser Paul Volcker told the New York Historical Society it should be considered. The “it” here is a Value Added Tax (VAT), which is a fancy way of saying national sales tax.
A VAT can be (and has been) structured in many different ways. But the real world results are always the same: higher taxes, more government spending, lower growth, fewer jobs and more special interest power.
Higher Taxes: Don’t believe for a second that a VAT will help offset other taxes. International evidence clearly shows that a VAT is likely to increase the aggregate burden of government. Europeans used to only have a slightly higher tax burden than the United States. But beginning in the late 1960s, European countries began to implement VATs. Since then, the overall tax burden in Europe has climbed rapidly. And once a VAT is in place, the evidence shows that the tax rate rises over time.
Higher Government Spending: Not surprisingly, with more revenues, European governments turn around and spend much more than the United States does. According to a study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, government spending grew 45 percent faster in VAT nations than in non-VAT countries.
Slower Growth: According to the academic literature, there is a strong negative relationship between government spending and economic performance. In other words, more government spending means less economic growth and fewer jobs. Economic growth is driven by individuals and entrepreneurs operating in free markets, not by Washington spending and regulations.
More Power to Washington: There is one economy that would greatly benefit from a VAT: Washington, DC. No VAT could ever be levied evenly on all goods and services. Due to political considerations, a VAT in addition to current taxes would likely exempt politically sensitive items like food, clothing, health care and housing. Industries would lobby heavily for exemptions from the VAT for the economic benefits described above. This would give Congress an even larger role in picking winners and losers in the marketplace. Success would depend less on ingenuity and hard work and more on the ability to gain political favor.
Our nation faces a financial crisis. But low revenues are not the problem. Spending is. Heritage fellow Brian Riedl explains:
Real federal spending remained steady at $21,000 per household throughout the 1980s and 1990s, before President Bush hiked it to $25,000 per household. Now, President Obama has a proposed a budget that would permanently spend a staggering $32,000 per household annually – and that’s before all the baby boomers retire and add another $10,000 per household in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicare costs to the bottom line.
So the problem is not declining revenues, but rather a spending spree unlike any in American history. If Washington insists on spending $32,000 per household, it will have to tax $32,000 per household – an unaffordable and unfair tax burden regardless what kind of tax collects it.
Rather than tax America into permanent economic stagnation, President Obama and Congress must rein in runaway federal spending. Simply bringing real federal spending back to the $21,000 per household average that prevailed in the 1980s and 1990s would balance the budget by 2012 without raising a single tax on anyone. Even returning spending to the pre-recession level of 20 percent of GDP would eliminate two-thirds of the projected 2019 budget deficit without raising taxes.
Quick Hits:
•According to the Treasury Department, President Obama and Democratic lawmakers plan to raise taxes on upper income Americans by $41 billion next year and $969 billion over the next decade.
•Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced Tuesday that the Obama administration plans to use tax payer money to fund a “help desk” designed to educate “Americans about the benefits for them in” Obamacare.
•The pension plans of Obama administration-owned General Motors and United Auto Workers-owned Chrysler are underfunded by a total of $17 billion and could fail if the automakers do not return to profitability.
•The White House hinted yesterday it might cancel next month’s meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and declined to call Karzai a U.S. ally.
•A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that the FCC overstepped its authority in 2008 when regulators barred Comcast from managing Internet traffic from peer-to-peer, video-sharing services.
Author: Conn Carroll.
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!
Morning Bell: How the Left Really Plans to Pay for Obamacare
Posted April 7th, 2010
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), over half of President Barack Obama’s new $940 billion health care entitlement is paid for by price-fixing Medicare cuts. Never mind that the President’s own Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says that these cuts would cause “roughly 20 percent” of Medicare providers to go bankrupt in Obamacare’s first ten years. The CBO has to believe these cuts will happen because they are required, by law, to believe everything Congress tells them. The American people are not. So the American people ought to know that instead of cutting doctors’ Medicare reimbursement rates by 21% as required by law on April 1, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services froze payments at current levels until Congress could come back after Easter recess and rescind those cuts. Again. As they have done every year but one since the cuts were first enacted in 1997.
This doc fix is big enough that, if it had been included as a cost of Obamacare, it would have sent the President’s bill into the red all by itself. But the half trillion dollars in Medicare cuts used to fund the rest of Obamacare are a much bigger problem. Even if we assume they all go as planned, President Obama’s budget would borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010; would run a $1.6 trillion deficit in 2010; and would leave permanent deficits that top $1 trillion as late as 2020. Add on the half trillion dollars in Medicare cuts that, given Congress’ track record, the American people would be naive to think will ever happen, and the federal government is looking at a pile of new debt.
The left’s solution to this problem has been simmering for some time now. Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) floated the idea to The Washington Post last May. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told Charlie Rose it was “on the table” in October. And yesterday White House adviser Paul Volcker told the New York Historical Society it should be considered. The “it” here is a Value Added Tax (VAT), which is a fancy way of saying national sales tax.
A VAT can be (and has been) structured in many different ways. But the real world results are always the same: higher taxes, more government spending, lower growth, fewer jobs and more special interest power.
Higher Taxes: Don’t believe for a second that a VAT will help offset other taxes. International evidence clearly shows that a VAT is likely to increase the aggregate burden of government. Europeans used to only have a slightly higher tax burden than the United States. But beginning in the late 1960s, European countries began to implement VATs. Since then, the overall tax burden in Europe has climbed rapidly. And once a VAT is in place, the evidence shows that the tax rate rises over time.
Higher Government Spending: Not surprisingly, with more revenues, European governments turn around and spend much more than the United States does. According to a study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, government spending grew 45 percent faster in VAT nations than in non-VAT countries.
Slower Growth: According to the academic literature, there is a strong negative relationship between government spending and economic performance. In other words, more government spending means less economic growth and fewer jobs. Economic growth is driven by individuals and entrepreneurs operating in free markets, not by Washington spending and regulations.
More Power to Washington: There is one economy that would greatly benefit from a VAT: Washington, DC. No VAT could ever be levied evenly on all goods and services. Due to political considerations, a VAT in addition to current taxes would likely exempt politically sensitive items like food, clothing, health care and housing. Industries would lobby heavily for exemptions from the VAT for the economic benefits described above. This would give Congress an even larger role in picking winners and losers in the marketplace. Success would depend less on ingenuity and hard work and more on the ability to gain political favor.
Our nation faces a financial crisis. But low revenues are not the problem. Spending is. Heritage fellow Brian Riedl explains:
Real federal spending remained steady at $21,000 per household throughout the 1980s and 1990s, before President Bush hiked it to $25,000 per household. Now, President Obama has a proposed a budget that would permanently spend a staggering $32,000 per household annually – and that’s before all the baby boomers retire and add another $10,000 per household in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicare costs to the bottom line.
So the problem is not declining revenues, but rather a spending spree unlike any in American history. If Washington insists on spending $32,000 per household, it will have to tax $32,000 per household – an unaffordable and unfair tax burden regardless what kind of tax collects it.
Rather than tax America into permanent economic stagnation, President Obama and Congress must rein in runaway federal spending. Simply bringing real federal spending back to the $21,000 per household average that prevailed in the 1980s and 1990s would balance the budget by 2012 without raising a single tax on anyone. Even returning spending to the pre-recession level of 20 percent of GDP would eliminate two-thirds of the projected 2019 budget deficit without raising taxes.
Quick Hits:
•According to the Treasury Department, President Obama and Democratic lawmakers plan to raise taxes on upper income Americans by $41 billion next year and $969 billion over the next decade.
•Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced Tuesday that the Obama administration plans to use tax payer money to fund a “help desk” designed to educate “Americans about the benefits for them in” Obamacare.
•The pension plans of Obama administration-owned General Motors and United Auto Workers-owned Chrysler are underfunded by a total of $17 billion and could fail if the automakers do not return to profitability.
•The White House hinted yesterday it might cancel next month’s meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and declined to call Karzai a U.S. ally.
•A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that the FCC overstepped its authority in 2008 when regulators barred Comcast from managing Internet traffic from peer-to-peer, video-sharing services.
Author: Conn Carroll.
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!
The undisguised shredding of the Constitution, by so many Democrats in this Congress, is appalling and distressing. Why isn't there more outrage?
Chronicle for Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - Editions - PatriotPost.US
God Bless America, And May HE Help Us All!
Chronicle for Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - Editions - PatriotPost.US
God Bless America, And May HE Help Us All!
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
The Rape Of America
First found on http://itdontmakesense.blogspot.com/2010/04/send-this-to-all-your-friends-and.html, what a powerful piece...
The Rape Of America
By Robin of Berkeley
Let's start by analyzing the mind of a rapist. His goal: Domination and absolute power, through any means necessary.
His motivation: punishing another, degrading her, feeling superior and God-like. Making her feel like an object, nothing, a no-thing.
What else propels him? Taking what he wants just because he wants it. Feeling the surge of power, the adrenaline rush, the thrill of stealing a piece of her.
Anything else? Feeding primitive, twisted impulses; expressing sadistic needs; the savage excitement of subjugating and controlling another.
Those most likely to rape? Someone who was sexually abused himself, an outsider, a person robbed of a normal childhood. A man who has carved an identity out of rage and envy and resentment. Someone who feels entitled to take whatever he wants.
What fosters rape? Parents missing in action. A culture that thumbs its nose at God.
And a society that minimizes crime, that even heralds certain criminals as heroes. (Some Black Panthers were rapists, yet they're revered as idols.) A culture where punishment is weak and politicians are moral cowards, fearful of the ACLU.
What else? A media that celebrates debauchery, that entertains through degrading and objectifying. Popular rap songs and cool hip-hop artists whose words slice and dice women. Films where anything goes, where hot lesbian sex scenes are as omnipresent as those boneheaded authority figures.
And the aftermath of rape? The destruction of something in the victim that will never return: a feeling of safety in the world, in her own body. The nightmare of being treated as an animal -- no, worse than this, since animals are now venerated. And from this nightmare she may never completely awaken.
This, in a nutshell, is how rape works. But words alone can never capture the enormity, the horror, the soul-crushing evil of rape. And not only females can be victims; men and little boys are violated, with women, on rare occasions, as perpetrators.
The word "rape" has an intriguing history. It originally denoted the violent seizure of property. I'm going to use the term in both the historic and modern sense to convey what is happening today.
This country is being raped.
It's no coincidence that the race for the presidency began with vile behavior against Hillary Clinton -- a high-tech wilding of sorts, with her body and sexuality defiled.
But the abuse of Clinton was a walk in the park compared to what has been done to Sarah Palin. Because she's a conservative, and an attractive, younger woman, the debasement has progressed at a fever pitch.
And just like in a gang rape, people who could have done something about it didn't. In fact, the liberal media and many Democrats have stood around watching, egging on the players.
Can someone explain to me how the Democrats' complicity is any different from what happened a few months ago at Richmond High School? There, a gang of boys raped and beat a girl as a crowd not only snickered, but filmed the assault.
We also have the economic rapes, the constant shrieks of "Gimme, gimme." Give me what you have because I want it. Whether it's the iPod torn from your ear, or a big chunk of your income, or your standard of living, no matter. I want it, I demand it, give it to me.
Or the intrusions into our very bodies by ObamaCare's Biggest of Big Brothers. Our medical records, our personal information, our physician/patient relationship, our DNA -- they want it, so they will take it from us.
And now that the Left has finally appropriated our health care and our student loans, our banks and newspapers and automobile companies, are they happy? Satisfied? Grateful, for God's sake?
No, the mocking continues, the outright threats and the violence escalate. Suddenly conservatives are not simply opponents exercising First Amendment rights. We're delusional, crazy, violent, not quite human.
This is what happens when miscreants get away with immoral behavior. In the criminal arena, when the bad guys are given a wink-wink, or a "boys will be boys," or, "He's a victim of white privilege," the perp becomes more emboldened. And he's even more contemptuous of a culture that lets him get away with, quite literally at times, murder.
Still not convinced that what's going on is a Rape of America?
What about the queering of children, our School Czar having a history of teaching kids about fisting and water sports? Or schoolchildren being subjected to graphic talks by transsexuals or transvestites or promoters of the sexuality du jour?
What about forcing their way into young, impressionable minds, teaching them to hate? Like Palestinian children programmed to despise Israelis, our kids also learn animosity -- but toward America.
Still not sure that the sexualization of children, the wilding of women, the looting of the economy, and the intrusions into our bodies constitute the Rape of America?
I have one final piece of evidence. A majority of citizens are shouting "No," from the rooftops. No! to ObamaCare. No! to socialism. No! to trashing the Constitution.
And yet, to Obama and the Left, the assertion of "No" does not matter. Smug and entitled, drunk with power and giddy when they see our fear, they take what they want anyway.
A frequent AT contributor, Robin is a recovering liberal and a psychotherapist in Berkeley.
The Rape Of America
By Robin of Berkeley
Let's start by analyzing the mind of a rapist. His goal: Domination and absolute power, through any means necessary.
His motivation: punishing another, degrading her, feeling superior and God-like. Making her feel like an object, nothing, a no-thing.
What else propels him? Taking what he wants just because he wants it. Feeling the surge of power, the adrenaline rush, the thrill of stealing a piece of her.
Anything else? Feeding primitive, twisted impulses; expressing sadistic needs; the savage excitement of subjugating and controlling another.
Those most likely to rape? Someone who was sexually abused himself, an outsider, a person robbed of a normal childhood. A man who has carved an identity out of rage and envy and resentment. Someone who feels entitled to take whatever he wants.
What fosters rape? Parents missing in action. A culture that thumbs its nose at God.
And a society that minimizes crime, that even heralds certain criminals as heroes. (Some Black Panthers were rapists, yet they're revered as idols.) A culture where punishment is weak and politicians are moral cowards, fearful of the ACLU.
What else? A media that celebrates debauchery, that entertains through degrading and objectifying. Popular rap songs and cool hip-hop artists whose words slice and dice women. Films where anything goes, where hot lesbian sex scenes are as omnipresent as those boneheaded authority figures.
And the aftermath of rape? The destruction of something in the victim that will never return: a feeling of safety in the world, in her own body. The nightmare of being treated as an animal -- no, worse than this, since animals are now venerated. And from this nightmare she may never completely awaken.
This, in a nutshell, is how rape works. But words alone can never capture the enormity, the horror, the soul-crushing evil of rape. And not only females can be victims; men and little boys are violated, with women, on rare occasions, as perpetrators.
The word "rape" has an intriguing history. It originally denoted the violent seizure of property. I'm going to use the term in both the historic and modern sense to convey what is happening today.
This country is being raped.
It's no coincidence that the race for the presidency began with vile behavior against Hillary Clinton -- a high-tech wilding of sorts, with her body and sexuality defiled.
But the abuse of Clinton was a walk in the park compared to what has been done to Sarah Palin. Because she's a conservative, and an attractive, younger woman, the debasement has progressed at a fever pitch.
And just like in a gang rape, people who could have done something about it didn't. In fact, the liberal media and many Democrats have stood around watching, egging on the players.
Can someone explain to me how the Democrats' complicity is any different from what happened a few months ago at Richmond High School? There, a gang of boys raped and beat a girl as a crowd not only snickered, but filmed the assault.
We also have the economic rapes, the constant shrieks of "Gimme, gimme." Give me what you have because I want it. Whether it's the iPod torn from your ear, or a big chunk of your income, or your standard of living, no matter. I want it, I demand it, give it to me.
Or the intrusions into our very bodies by ObamaCare's Biggest of Big Brothers. Our medical records, our personal information, our physician/patient relationship, our DNA -- they want it, so they will take it from us.
And now that the Left has finally appropriated our health care and our student loans, our banks and newspapers and automobile companies, are they happy? Satisfied? Grateful, for God's sake?
No, the mocking continues, the outright threats and the violence escalate. Suddenly conservatives are not simply opponents exercising First Amendment rights. We're delusional, crazy, violent, not quite human.
This is what happens when miscreants get away with immoral behavior. In the criminal arena, when the bad guys are given a wink-wink, or a "boys will be boys," or, "He's a victim of white privilege," the perp becomes more emboldened. And he's even more contemptuous of a culture that lets him get away with, quite literally at times, murder.
Still not convinced that what's going on is a Rape of America?
What about the queering of children, our School Czar having a history of teaching kids about fisting and water sports? Or schoolchildren being subjected to graphic talks by transsexuals or transvestites or promoters of the sexuality du jour?
What about forcing their way into young, impressionable minds, teaching them to hate? Like Palestinian children programmed to despise Israelis, our kids also learn animosity -- but toward America.
Still not sure that the sexualization of children, the wilding of women, the looting of the economy, and the intrusions into our bodies constitute the Rape of America?
I have one final piece of evidence. A majority of citizens are shouting "No," from the rooftops. No! to ObamaCare. No! to socialism. No! to trashing the Constitution.
And yet, to Obama and the Left, the assertion of "No" does not matter. Smug and entitled, drunk with power and giddy when they see our fear, they take what they want anyway.
A frequent AT contributor, Robin is a recovering liberal and a psychotherapist in Berkeley.
Obama Pie In The Sky
This guy, Obama, has lost all touch with reality if he really believes that he can create a climate for a "nuke-free" world. The progressives have tried it with Gun Control - how's that change working out? The criminals have guns, and the law abiding citizens can't defend themselves without risking going to jail. Imagine that scenario on a global nuclear scale? North Korea and Iran running around unabated with nukes while America cowers because we can't defend ourselves? Absolutely frightening. This guy is an absolute moron! Read on...
Morning Bell: The Road to a New Nuclear Arms Race The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
God Bless America!
Morning Bell: The Road to a New Nuclear Arms Race The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
God Bless America!
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
A Win/Win For Russia; Way To Go Mr. President!
Russia reserves opt-out of arms treaty with US
AP – Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov speaks to the press in Moscow on Tuesday, April 6, 2010. Lavrov … .By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press Writer
MOSCOW – The new U.S.-Russian arms control treaty is a much better deal for Russia than its predecessor, but Moscow reserves the right to withdraw from it if a planned U.S. missile defense system grows into a threat, Russia's foreign minister said Tuesday.
Sergey Lavrov said Russia will issue a statement outlining the terms for such a withdrawal after President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sign the treaty Thursday in Prague. The new accord replaces the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START I, which expired in December.
Lavrov has said before that Russia could withdraw from the treaty. But his comments at a briefing Tuesday were his most specific yet on how and why a withdrawal could occur.
"Russia will have the right to opt out of the treaty if ... the U.S. strategic missile defense begins to significantly affect the efficiency of Russian strategic nuclear forces," he said.
Moscow welcomed Obama's decision to scrap the previous administration's plans for missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, but expressed concern about plans for a revamped shield, including a possible facility in Romania.
Lavrov said the site in Romania poses no immediate threat, but Russia could opt out of the new treaty if U.S. missile interceptors become capable of intercepting Russia's strategic missiles.
"We have noted that the U.S. system won't have a strategic capacity in its early stages," he said. "We shall see what will happen next. When and if this system gets a strategic capacity, we shall see whether it creates risks for our strategic nuclear forces."
The talks on a START successor had dragged on for nearly a year. They were stymied most recently by Russia's demand for an explicit link between strategic arms cuts and development of the U.S. missile defense system. The U.S. Senate, however, has opposed any restrictions on the shield.
Moscow eventually agreed to have just a general statement noting a link between strategic offensive and defensive weapons. U.S. officials said the wording imposes no constraints on missile defense.
Lavrov said the new agreement will be the first arms-control treaty to make the parties fully equal. He said Russia shares Obama's goal of a nuclear-free world, but said other nations must join the disarmament process, as well.
Mistake after mistake after mistake after mistake. It has GOT to be intentional!!!
God Bless America!
AP – Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov speaks to the press in Moscow on Tuesday, April 6, 2010. Lavrov … .By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press Writer
MOSCOW – The new U.S.-Russian arms control treaty is a much better deal for Russia than its predecessor, but Moscow reserves the right to withdraw from it if a planned U.S. missile defense system grows into a threat, Russia's foreign minister said Tuesday.
Sergey Lavrov said Russia will issue a statement outlining the terms for such a withdrawal after President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sign the treaty Thursday in Prague. The new accord replaces the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START I, which expired in December.
Lavrov has said before that Russia could withdraw from the treaty. But his comments at a briefing Tuesday were his most specific yet on how and why a withdrawal could occur.
"Russia will have the right to opt out of the treaty if ... the U.S. strategic missile defense begins to significantly affect the efficiency of Russian strategic nuclear forces," he said.
Moscow welcomed Obama's decision to scrap the previous administration's plans for missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, but expressed concern about plans for a revamped shield, including a possible facility in Romania.
Lavrov said the site in Romania poses no immediate threat, but Russia could opt out of the new treaty if U.S. missile interceptors become capable of intercepting Russia's strategic missiles.
"We have noted that the U.S. system won't have a strategic capacity in its early stages," he said. "We shall see what will happen next. When and if this system gets a strategic capacity, we shall see whether it creates risks for our strategic nuclear forces."
The talks on a START successor had dragged on for nearly a year. They were stymied most recently by Russia's demand for an explicit link between strategic arms cuts and development of the U.S. missile defense system. The U.S. Senate, however, has opposed any restrictions on the shield.
Moscow eventually agreed to have just a general statement noting a link between strategic offensive and defensive weapons. U.S. officials said the wording imposes no constraints on missile defense.
Lavrov said the new agreement will be the first arms-control treaty to make the parties fully equal. He said Russia shares Obama's goal of a nuclear-free world, but said other nations must join the disarmament process, as well.
Mistake after mistake after mistake after mistake. It has GOT to be intentional!!!
God Bless America!
Monday, April 5, 2010
Are We Being "Managed" By The Federal Government We Trusted?
The US government already has checks in place to dissuade perception management conducted by the state towards domestic populations, such as the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which "forbids the domestic dissemination of U.S. Government authored or developed propaganda... deliberately designed to influence public opinion or policy."[11]
Perception management can be used as a propaganda strategy for controlling how people view political events. This practice was refined by US intelligence services as they tried to manipulate foreign populations, but it eventually made its way into domestic US politics as a tool to manipulate post-Vietnam-War-era public opinion. For example, in the early 1980s, the Reagan administration saw the "Vietnam Syndrome"—a reluctance to commit military forces abroad—as a strategic threat to its Cold War policies. This caused the administration to launch an extraordinary effort to change people's perception of foreign events, essentially by exaggerating threats from abroad and demonizing selected foreign leaders. The strategy proved to be very successful.[12]
Beginning in the 1950s, more than 800 news and public information organizations and individuals carried out assignments to manage the public's perception of the CIA, according to the New York Times. By the mid-80s, CIA Director William Casey had taken the practice to the next level: an organized, covert "public diplomacy" apparatus designed to sell a "new product"—Central America—while stoking fear of communism, the Sandinistas, Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, and anyone else considered an adversary during the Ronald Reagan presidential administration. Sometimes it involved so-called "white propaganda", stories and op-eds secretly financed by the government. But they also went "black", pushing false story lines, such as how the Sandinistas were actually anti-Semitic drug dealers. That campaign included altered photos and blatant disinformation dispersed by public officials as high as the president himself.[8]
The term "perception management" is not new to the lexicon of government language. For years the FBI has listed foreign perception management as one of eight "key issue threats" to national security, including it with terrorism, attacks on critical US infrastructure, and weapons proliferation among others. The FBI clearly recognizes perception management as a threat when it is directed at the US by foreign governments.[13]
For the full text of this article, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception_management
You can also research Perception Management Firms, and the reason those firms exist. They do not 'spin" the truth, they create an alternate reality. Comforting? How much of what we "believe" is actually manufactured and how much is true? And how long have governments been "playing" their citizens? Decades? Hundreds of years?
Stay Engaged America, It's Time To Take America Back. It's Time To Expect More From Our Government. You Know, Like Complete Honesty...
Perception management can be used as a propaganda strategy for controlling how people view political events. This practice was refined by US intelligence services as they tried to manipulate foreign populations, but it eventually made its way into domestic US politics as a tool to manipulate post-Vietnam-War-era public opinion. For example, in the early 1980s, the Reagan administration saw the "Vietnam Syndrome"—a reluctance to commit military forces abroad—as a strategic threat to its Cold War policies. This caused the administration to launch an extraordinary effort to change people's perception of foreign events, essentially by exaggerating threats from abroad and demonizing selected foreign leaders. The strategy proved to be very successful.[12]
Beginning in the 1950s, more than 800 news and public information organizations and individuals carried out assignments to manage the public's perception of the CIA, according to the New York Times. By the mid-80s, CIA Director William Casey had taken the practice to the next level: an organized, covert "public diplomacy" apparatus designed to sell a "new product"—Central America—while stoking fear of communism, the Sandinistas, Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, and anyone else considered an adversary during the Ronald Reagan presidential administration. Sometimes it involved so-called "white propaganda", stories and op-eds secretly financed by the government. But they also went "black", pushing false story lines, such as how the Sandinistas were actually anti-Semitic drug dealers. That campaign included altered photos and blatant disinformation dispersed by public officials as high as the president himself.[8]
The term "perception management" is not new to the lexicon of government language. For years the FBI has listed foreign perception management as one of eight "key issue threats" to national security, including it with terrorism, attacks on critical US infrastructure, and weapons proliferation among others. The FBI clearly recognizes perception management as a threat when it is directed at the US by foreign governments.[13]
For the full text of this article, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception_management
You can also research Perception Management Firms, and the reason those firms exist. They do not 'spin" the truth, they create an alternate reality. Comforting? How much of what we "believe" is actually manufactured and how much is true? And how long have governments been "playing" their citizens? Decades? Hundreds of years?
Stay Engaged America, It's Time To Take America Back. It's Time To Expect More From Our Government. You Know, Like Complete Honesty...
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Exploiting the Crisis with Washington ~ Bible Prophecy Today
This article is quite disturbing on a number of obvious fronts. But it also brought to mind the events of The Left Behind Series by Dennis Lehaye and Jerry Jenkins. In that series, Isreal is under attack and Nicolae broker's a 7 year treaty between the parties. It's a precursor to Nicolae building his one-world government and disarming everyone but himself. There are many paralells between that series and Obama, and the events playing out in the world today. Is what's happening, as described through this article, a lead-up to such heightened tension that an Isreali war ensues? And if so, will Obama, whether still President or not, be involved with brokering the peace treaty to end that conflict? Do prophets still exist? Would we recognize them if they did?
Exploiting the Crisis with Washington ~ Bible Prophecy Today
Remember God and embrace him in your lives during these strange, difficult and dangerous times.
God Bless America! And God Help Us All!
Exploiting the Crisis with Washington ~ Bible Prophecy Today
Remember God and embrace him in your lives during these strange, difficult and dangerous times.
God Bless America! And God Help Us All!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)