Thursday, November 22, 2007

COMMENTS PLEASE






I do not always agree with Roy but every once in awhile has something that I think is worth passing on. Comments welcome.


HAPPY THANKSGIVING,

I'm taking a break from parades, football games and dinner prep with my wife, my sons and their wives (and assorted grandpets) in a Queens co-op. I hope each of you can similarly find yourself in the midst of warm community this holiday weekend. With Congress away from the Capitol, I finally feel a relative sense of security that allows me to turn my full attention to the fast-approaching presidential primaries.

I've been watching some political ads on the internet and reading through the official websites.

I find myself overwhelmed with a sense of thanksgiving that -- after three decades as a journalist observing reckless, thoughtless federal immigration policies attack the lives of the American people -- I can clearly see that the broad field of presidential candidates is under enormous pressure to move in our direction on immigration.

Candidates that have always been good on immigration have gotten better. Those who were mediocre or incomplete in the past have become good or excellent. And of those who have been terrible on protecting Americans from promiscuous, uncontrolled immigration, many are starting to show signs of doubt (witness the consternation some have been showing over driver's licenses for illegal aliens).

People like you are making that happen. Thanks to all who have been sending faxes and emails, and who have been making phone calls, to presidential campaigns over the last year.

Of course, we aren't even close to where we need to be with these candidates. It is still frighteningly possible that the two nominees will provide barely better than George Bush's disastrous immigration leadership!

There is still so much you can do to help shape the candidates' immigration stances. They are still in flux. Let's continue to "flux" them in the right direction!

A SERIES OF ANALYSIS & SUGGESTED ACTIONS ON PRESIDENTIAL RACES COMING YOUR WAY

Nothing is likely to have more effect on our lives in terms of immigration 2009-2012 (maybe through 2016) than how the primaries & caucuses in January and February narrow presidential choices down to two people.

We will continue through December to rally you to push Congress to:
# put back $3 billion into border security initiatives
# mandate that all businesses use E-Verify to take the jobs magnet away from illegal immigration


But throughout December we will also be giving you a lot of special analysis of each Presidential candidate and each shift of their immigration positions -- as well as things you can do to nudge those shifts.

As with all of our immigration grading the last 10+ years, we will not be endorsing candidates or favoring Parties or political ideologies. But we will pull no punches in candidly assessing the immigration positions of all. If you want your favorite candidates to get a better write-up from us, you'll need to persuade them to strengthen their immigration positions.

And as always, please contact us if you see anything on our website or in our emails that appears to be in error or incomplete.

IN A TREND OF INCREASINGLY DETAILED EXCELLENT POLICY PROMISES BY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES -- THOMPSON HAS SET A NEW HIGH STANDARD

When Fred Thompson came out with a detailed immigration policy this fall, I knew it was very good but was too busy leading the fight against amnesties in the Senate to give thorough attention.

Reading Thompson's full proposed immigration policy this afternoon, I am blown away by its depth, its breadth and at how it would so fundamentally change Americans' future for the better.

As a Senator from Tennessee in the 1990s, Thompson had a mixed record on immigration. I've studied that record and believe it reflects the problem that we saw even in some of this year's Senate heroes who also were mediocre in the 1990s -- most of them just weren't paying much attention to this issue in the 1990s (just like a lot of you have only become active on this during the last couple of years).

NumbersUSA always gives ample credit to politicians who turn from bad or mediocre records and decide to become our champions. But less-than-stellar past records require us to look for signs of sincerity and assurance that they will follow through on their promises.

With Thompson, we will be watching closely for these signs. One strong point for him is that he finished his Senate career with an A-minus performance in 01/02 term after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. And since coming out with his official stance, he has not been equivocating when asked about immigration in media appearances or in strong immigration ads.

KEY PARTS OF THE THOMPSON IMMIGRATION PLAN

You can read the full Thompson immigration plan at:

http://www.fred08.com/virtual/Immigration.aspx

I hope many of you will send messages of reinforcement to the Thompson campaign (as we've asked you to do for other candidates when they do positive things). Here is a link to the websitehttp://www.fred08.com/index.aspx

THE THOMPSON PLAN

* END CHAIN MIGRATION!

I don't find any other presidential website that explicitly has the end of chain migration as a goal. I have maintained since my first books in the mid-1990s that ending Chain Migration is the single most effective action for reducing negative immigration impacts. Chain Migration breeds all kinds of illegal immigration among extended family who feel they have an entitlement to immigrate and don't wait their turn. Chain Migration multiplies the harm of every immigration action by allowing each new immigrant and refugee to eventually import huge extended families and eventually whole villages.

Thompson would restrict immigrants and refugees to bringing in their spouse and minor children. No more adult siblings, adult children or parents. Hence, no more nephews, nieces, in-laws, aunts, uncles and cousins -- unless they earn the right on their own merits. Everybody could come to visit on carefully controlled visitor visas. But if people want to live with their entire extended families, they'll need to continue to live where their extended family lives.

* ELIMINATE THE VISA LOTTERY.

Since 1990, this ridiculous program gives away the opportunity for U.S. citizenship to some 50,000 people a year based on totally random luck of the draw, with no regard to the national interest, the immigrant's skills, education or humanitarian claim.

Inadvertently, the lottery rules are set up so that people from terrorist sponsoring countries are a disproportionate percentage of the winners.

The lottery is a breeder of illegal immigration as it gives false hopes to tens of millions of people around the world who play the lottery each year, many of whom eventually decide to speed up their dream by moving illegally to the U.S. and waiting to win the lottery here.

* (weakness) No Explicit Goal of Numerical Reduction.

Although eliminating Chain Migration and the Visa Lottery would reduce future legal and illegal immigration by 5-8 million per decade, it would do so only if Congress and the President abstain from increasing other categories of immigration. Thompson has left this issue unanswered. I can find Tom Tancredo as the only candidate who actually promises total immigration reductions. Tancredo urges that legal immigration be reduced from its current 1 million a year to 250,000 a year, which is near our traditional average before the last three decades of abuse.

* NO AMNESTY.

Thompson seems to rule out any kind of amnesty that would allow illegal aliens to remain in the United States.

* ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT.

Thompson promotes that very term. His goal is to drive as many illegal aliens as possible to voluntarily leave the country because magnets have been removed and the chances of being arrested and deported have been increased. He does not accept that we are stuck with the 12-20 million illegal aliens.

* MANDATORY USE OF E-VERIFY BY ALL BUSINESSES TO KEEP ILLEGAL ALIENS OUT OF U.S. JOBS.

* DENY TAX DEDUCTION TO EMPLOYERS FOR THE WAGES THEY PAY TO ILLEGAL ALIENS.

The IRS already knows all the employees who are working without valid Social Security numbers. This provision would simply authorize the IRS to disallow deductions for wages paid to those particular employees, thus increasing the costs of hiring illegals.

* FINISH BUILDING THE 854--MILE WALL ON THE MEXICAN BORDER AS AUTHORIZED BY 2006 LAW.

* RIGOROUS ENTRY/EXIT TRACKING OF LEGAL VISITORS.

"Complete the implementation of a system to track visa entrants and exits, as has been required by federal law for more than ten years, and connect it to the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC), in order to curb visa overstays and permit more effective enforcement."

* TARGET SMUGGLERS, GANG MEMBERS AND SPEED UP DEPORTATIONS.

"Adding resources for the Department of Justice to prosecute alien smugglers, people involved in trafficking in false identification documents, and previously deported felons. ... Maximizing efforts to prosecute and convict members of criminal alien gangs, such as MS-13 and affiliated gangs. ... Implementing fully and making greater use of the expedited removal process already allowed under federal law."

* ENFORCE EXISTING FEDERAL LAWS.

* END SANCTUARY CITIES & BENEFITS TO ILLEGAL ALIENS.

Cut off discretionary federal grant funds "as appropriate to any community that, by law, ordinance, executive order, or other formal policy directs its public officials not to comply with the provisions of 8 USC 1373 and 8 USC 1644, which prohibit any state or local government from restricting in any way communications with the Department of Homeland Security regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States."

"Deny discretionary Federal education grants as appropriate to public universities that violate federal law by offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens without also offering identical benefits to United States citizens, regardless of whether or not they live in the state, as required by 8 USC 1623."

"Deny discretionary Federal grants as appropriate to states and local governments that violate federal law by offering public benefits to illegal aliens, as prohibited by 8 USC 1621(a)."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Friends, these candidates are increasingly figuring out what the American people want. The Thompson plan goes far beyond platitudes and, in my opinion, shows interest and understanding of what it would actually take to bring back order into our immigration system.

I am exceedingly pleased to see this development.

I'll be writing soon with more on these crucial Presidential races.

ENJOY YOUR WEEKEND,

HE PROTESTS TOO MUCH




Me thinketh that op-ed writer Mr Cohen doth protest too loudly. Of course he is writing for the Washington Post should say some thing to all intelligent, right thinking individuals every where. I would rather vote for someone who holds strong religious beliefs as opposed to someone who hasn't any religious beliefs.

While it is true that some of the founding fathers were not Christians (Washington, Jefferson, Franklin), many others were. Religion has played a major role in national politics and never appeared to be a serious problem until the last 10-12 years. Better a deeply religious person in the White House than an individual who has no faith to base his pronouncements on




You First, Governor Huckabee
By Richard Cohen

Tuesday, November 20, 2007; Page A17
To the many people, both domestic and foreign, who are asking Mitt Romney to do as John F. Kennedy once did and make a speech explaining why his religion is not a threat to our cherished American way of life, I suggest that Romney respond by pointing to his Republican opponents and uttering two words: "You first."
Romney, of course, is Mormon while JFK was Catholic, but if the question is whether a candidate's religion should be of concern to the American people, the candidates who should respond are those who repeatedly assert that faith, not ideology, is what drives them and even leads them to question evolution. Such a candidate is Mike Huckabee, the affable former governor of Arkansas and, more to the point, an ordained Baptist minister. He raised his hand in the negative last May when all the GOP presidential candidates were asked whether they believed in the theory of evolution.
In doing so, Huckabee failed a religious test for the presidency established inadvertently by George W. Bush. Back before Bush, it was considered narrow-minded and, worst of all, elitist, to judge a person by the intensity of his religious convictions. Belief was not supposed to matter, and so it was impermissible to conclude anything about a person even if he thought Darwin was wrong or, more recently, that homosexuals chose their sexual orientation, presumably just to irritate the Christian right. Religion was irrelevant. Everyone said so -- and I agreed.

Bush changed that. He infused government with religion, everything from ineffective programs that promote sexual abstinence to an adamant refusal to authorize federal spending for most embryonic stem-cell research. The administration even erected barriers to the marketing of the Plan B morning-after pill. All these measures ran up against obstacles that were essentially religious, not strictly scientific, in nature.

Even the war in Iraq had an undeniably religious cast to it. It's not just that Bush told Bob Woodward that it was not his own father -- George H.W. Bush -- to whom he looked for strength, but "a higher father," it's also that the president consistently puts himself on the side of God in matters distinctly secular, such as his crusade for democracy. "I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom," the president has said. Maybe so, maybe not, but that's not a sound basis for a foreign policy.


Now we have Huckabee talking in a similar manner. A fair reading of the Huckabee literature -- his Web site, interviews, etc. -- shows a similar religious inclination, and while on "The Charlie Rose Show" or something similar he can have moments of secular lucidity, his Web site forthrightly declares that he does not distinguish between his faith and his politics. "I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives," he says.
But a president should do exactly that. When Huckabee says he favors the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, he's taking a distinctly religious position. Intelligent design has no basis in science. And when any issue, any question, becomes a matter of faith, it means it cannot be argued. That's not what we do in a democracy. We argue about everything. (This column is my modest contribution.)
If anything, Romney is the anti-Huckabee. There is not the slightest hint that his religion has constrained his politics in any way. You name the issue and he's been for it and against it -- gun control, abortion, gay rights. Call this what you may, it is proof that Romney is not enslaved by any dogma. His religion, to which he is committed, is distinctly his business and would not, as far I can tell, have any bearing on his presidency.


At the moment, Huckabee appears to be coming on strong in Iowa. This is not as surprising as it might sound because, in 1988, the Rev. Pat Robertson came in second (to Bob Dole) and, of course, proceeded to nowhere. This is likely to happen to Huckabee, too. But this year the race is more wide open, there's no dominant front-runner, and Huckabee is proving to be a swell campaigner. If he wins Iowa, there's no telling what could happen.
So I call on Mike Huckabee to give the speech that others have urged from Romney. Tell us how your religious beliefs, your rejection of accepted scientific knowledge, will not impinge on your presidency. We know your faith matters to you. We want to know whether it will matter to us.

Monday, November 12, 2007

CAIR--A TERRORIST FRONT

Monday, November 12, 2007
CAIR--A TERRORIST FRONT

CAIR (COUNCIL FOR AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS) is and has been a front for "soft terrorist" activities in this country and a supporter of anti-American activities over seas.

This is pure unadulterated bull shit on their part and needs to be stopped.


Inside Cover

RSS ARCHIVE
Print Page | Forward Page | E-mail Us

CAIR Targets Another Conservative Talk Show Host

Sunday, November 11, 2007 9:19 PM

By: Susan Jones, CNSNews.com Senior Editor Article Font Size

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is pressing advertisers to withdraw their sponsorship of Michael Savage's nationally syndicated radio program because of Savage's alleged "anti-Muslim bigotry."

Savage, on his Web site, is fighting back, urging his listeners to protect freedom of speech: "Email your representative; investigate CAIR for manipulating the U.S. media," his Web site says.

On Nov. 1, CAIR urged "radio listeners of all faiths" to contact companies that advertise on "The Savage Nation" to complain about an "anti-Muslim tirade" on Savage's Oct. 29 program. (CAIR periodically issues "incitement alerts," urging its members to contact various media outlets to express their concerns about "Islamophobic attitudes.")

CAIR was particularly disturbed by Savage's "shouted anti-Muslim attacks," which it quoted as follows:

# "I'm not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I'm not getting' on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear anymore about Islam. I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you."

# "What kind of religion is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don't tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation. I don't need reeducation. Deportation, not reeducation. You can take C-A-I-R and throw 'em out of my country. I'd raise the American flag and I'd get out my trumpet if you did it. Without due process. You can take your due process and shove it."

# "What sane nation that worships the U.S. Constitution, which is the greatest document of freedom ever written, would bring in people who worship a book that tells them the exact opposite. Make no mistake about it, the Quran is not a document of freedom. The Quran is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave."

CAIR also complained that Savage has a "long history of rhetorical attacks on Muslims and other minorities."

Savage's own Web site describes him as "explosive conservative radio talk show host" who "continues to dominate the airwaves with his brash commentary and unapologetic solutions...Savage is harder hitting than other conservatives...a media icon who is unafraid to take on the establishment."

"...In show, books and speeches, Michael Savage electrifies and galvanizes his audiences. If you're looking for someone with an opinion -- who isn't afraid to tell it like it is -- he's your man."

On Nov. 2, CAIR's Minnesota chapter announced that three companies in that state had agreed to pull their advertisements from "The Savage Nation."

And on Thursday, CAIR thanked Citrix Systems, Inc., for agreeing to drop its advertisements from Savage's nationally syndicated program. "We appreciate Citrix's principled action to disassociate itself from Michael Savage's hate-filled rhetoric," said CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin in a news release on Thursday.

"We urge other local and national companies running ads on Savage's program to follow Citrix's example in support of religious tolerance."

What about free speech?

"Free speech is a precious right that we fully support and strive to protect," Rubin added. "We are not seeking to curb Mr. Savage's freedom of speech, but to demonstrate that Americans and American companies will not tolerate hatred and bigotry."

CAIR, which describes itself as America's largest Muslim civil liberties group, says its mission is to "enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding."

But conservative commentators who have been on the receiving end of CAIR's anti-Islamaphobia campaigns disagree.

Radio talk show host Michael Graham, forced out of his job in the Washington, D.C., market for refusing to apologize for remarks that offended a Muslim group, landed a new job in Boston, Mass., last year.

CAIR, which pressed for Graham's removal, said it received complaints from Muslim listeners who heard Graham say, "Islam is a terrorist organization," "Islam is at war with America," "The problem is not extremism. The problem is Islam," and "We are at war with a terrorist organization named Islam."

Graham was suspended from his job at ABC-owned WMAL in Washington on July 29, 2005, after he refused a management request to apologize for practicing what CAIR called "hate radio."

"When CAIR is able to quell dissent and label every critic a 'bigot,' the chilling effect is felt far beyond ABC Radio and 630 WMAL," Graham said at the time.

On Thursday, CAIR said radio host Michael Savage has "stepped up his attacks on Islam and Muslims in response to CAIR's advertiser campaign."

© 2007 CNSNews.com. All Rights Reserved

Monday, November 5, 2007

PRESBYTERIAN ACTION

The Washington Office of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
November 5, 2007
This week’s messages are—
The Full Senate Considers the Farm Bill – Call Now!
Ban U.S. Cluster Bomb Use and Export: Today, November 5, National Call-in to the Senate
Congo Global Action Coalition Conference and Lobby Day Cancelled
Isaiah 5:16-17 – The Lord is exalted by Justice
===============================================================
The Full Senate Considers the Farm Bill – Call Now!
The 2007 Farm Bill will be considered on the Senate floor starting today, Monday, Nov. 5, 2007. The bill produced by the Senate Agriculture Committee basically maintains the status quo and therefore falls far short of the reform for which advocates had been hoping. Instead, the Senate's current version of the Farm Bill does the following:
The existing farm payment structure was left mostly intact, ensuring that the largest and most prosperous farms will continue to receive the bulk of farm supports.
U.S. subsidies connecting payment to production, which ultimately hurt farmers in poor countries around the world, were maintained.
Food Stamp benefit levels were indexed for inflation, but not increased to ensure a healthy diet for struggling families and low-income populations.
• Conservation programs were made more available to farmers but funding is insufficient to ensure that all farmers who want to participate in land stewardship programs are able to do so.
Advocates of reform are now moving to an amendment strategy, where pieces of reform will be offered as amendments to the committee bill and voted upon on the Senate floor one at a time. Contact your Senators this week in support of amendments that will accomplish Farm Bill reform. Your input this week is very important!
The shape of the debate still remained nebulous at press time, but one amendment that will certainly be offered, and that is a key component of Farm Bill reform, is a payment limits amendment offered by Senators Dorgan (D-ND) and Grassley (R-IA). If approved by the Senate, this provision would be a meaningful first step in limiting payments and closing loopholes that allow some of the largest farm operations to collect seven-figure government checks each year. The amendment would set a limit of $250,000 for farm payments in an attempt to better distribute farm program payments to small and medium-sized farmers. Reasonable adjustments to payment limits are an important first step toward restoring basic fairness to the farming safety net.
Many more reform-minded amendments to the 2007 Farm Bill are expected to be offered next. Stay tuned at http://capwiz.com/pcusa/home/ for further details as amendments come up throughout the week.
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has been working to achieve just reform of the Farm Bill in partnership with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bread for the World, Church World Service, and many other faith-based organizations. Such Reform must:
• Ensure support for U.S. farmers who need it most: The Senate should pass a fair commodity title that targets payments to those who need them by enacting strict payment limits while closing loopholes that have permitted some to collect multiple payments.
• Strengthen nutrition, conservation, rural development and food aid programs: The Senate should redirect savings from the improvements to the farm safety net to programs that support people living in poverty and suffering from hunger in the U.S. and around the world.
• Reduce trade-distorting subsidies: The Senate should begin the transition to a modern safety net that helps U.S. farmers effectively manage their risk while reducing the potential for trade distortions that stymie the efforts of families living in developing countries to earn their way out of poverty.
• Facilitate fairer competition among livestock producers: The Senate should vote for reforms to the Livestock / Competition title that will ensure fair competition.
Click http://capwiz.com/pcusa/issues/alert/?alertid=10510651 to send a message to your Senators that you support votes for Farm Bill Reform on the Senate floor.
General Assembly Guidance:
In a 1985 statement, the Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly wrote “we believe it is the responsibility and duty of the Federal government to enact a comprehensive, long-term food and fiber policy, with specific price, production and conservation goals designed to protect and enhance family-farm agriculture in the United States … We believe further that this nation must establish a strong system of sustainable agriculture and prevent the continuing concentration of land in the hands of a smaller and smaller number of owners” (Minutes, 1985, p. 399).
Further, in 2002 the 214th General Assembly approved “We Are What We Eat: Recommendations and Report,” which “direct[ed] the Presbyterian Washington Office to continue its advocacy and education in areas of public policy regarding hunger concerns related to economic and food production issues, alert Presbyterians about upcoming public policy related to the agricultural revolution and food production/consumption, [and] encourage members of the PC (USA) to contact legislators urging support of the family farmer/ranchers, farm and processing plant workers, and equitable world trade policy” (Minutes, 2002, p.535).
________________________________________
Ban U.S. Cluster Bomb Use and Export: Today, November 5, National Call-in to the Senate

Cluster bombs are indiscriminate killers that spew deadly shrapnel over large swathes of land at the time of use and leave behind fields of landmines after combat ends. As a result, over the last 40 years the vast majority—98%—of cluster bomb casualties have been civilians.

More than 80 countries have agreed to negotiate a ban on these indiscriminate killers in the coming year. The U.S. government opposes the ban, arguing that the military’s need for these weapons over-rides humanitarian concerns. However, these weapons are even a liability for the military, as the unexploded bomblets impede troop movement and have killed dozens of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
If you are concerned about cluster bombs, an important priority in the coming year will be the passage of the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act (S.594/H.R.1755). There is a national call-in day on November 5 to urge Senators to co-sponsor S.594. This initiative takes place as part of a broader Global Day of Action on Cluster Bombs, called by the worldwide Cluster Munitions Coalition to help propel the global cluster bomb treaty negotiations.

We invite you to take part. It’s easy. There is a toll-free number (1-800-352-1897), which will allow people to call the Capitol Switchboard for free.
The following is further information that you can use to activate your networks, friends and family for the Nov. 5 National Call in to Ban U.S. Cluster Bombs!

What?
Today! National call-in day to the Senate, urging senators to cosponsor S.594 (the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act). S.594 would substantially restrict both the use and export of cluster bombs by:
1) requiring that they not be used in areas where civilians are known to be present, and
2) requiring that they have a dud rate of less than 1% (meaning that they will leave behind fewer deadly submunitions on the ground after the combat ends).

Why?
Today, November 5, is a Global Day of Action against cluster bombs. People all over the world are taking action to urge the banning of these indiscriminate killers. The call-in day is a chance to let our senators know that there is strong public opposition to these inhumane weapons in the U.S. and strong support for S.594.

When?
Make calls today, November 5, any time. Regular business hours are better, as you will get to talk to a person (instead of leaving a message). Calls on other days are also encouraged but the more we can concentrate on November 5, the better.

How?
Calls to the Senate can be made for free on (800) 352-1897. Callers will automatically be redirected to the Capitol Switchboard. They will need to ask for their Senator by name. (Go to http://capwiz.com/pcusa/dbq/officials/ to find your senators’ names) Once directed to the office, ask for the Legislative Assistant who deals with military and national security issues. Urge them to become a co-sponsor of S.594 and to work for its passage in the coming year.
Message:
• My name is [NAME], and I live in [CITY, STATE].Thanks for taking my call.
• I'm calling to encourage Senator [SENATOR'S NAME] to cosponsor S. 594, the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act. Will that be possible?
• Thank you.
Additional Talking Points:
• Cluster bombs are horrific weapons that are designed to kill all living creatures within the area of several football fields. Because many of the bomblets inside a cluster bomb fail to detonate on impact, this is a weapon that keeps on killing. The cluster bombs that the U.S. dropped 40 years ago in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam are still killing people today. Overall, 98% of all cluster bomb victims in the last 40 years have been civilians.
• I urge you to support passage of the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act (S.594). This common-sense bill prevents the U.S. military from using cluster bombs in areas where civilians are known to be present. If such weapons are used in combat areas, it requires that they have a “dud rate” of 1% or less—to ensure that a large minefield of deadly bomblets is not left behind. This bill represents a practical solution to a serious humanitarian threat, and it would bring the U.S. into line with the emerging international consensus against the misuse of these highly indiscriminate weapons.
• The Senate took an important step in September, when it included restrictions on exports of cluster munitions in the State Department/Foreign Operations bill. Thank you.
• Now please take the next step. Take a proactive role in protecting civilians. Co-sponsor S.594 today.
General Assembly Guidance:
The General Assembly’s guidelines for military-related investment, adopted in 1982 and most recently revised in 1998, include particular concern over weapons that do not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. The policy urges divestment from corporations that produce weapons whose use can lead to mass or indiscriminate injury and/or death to civilians, including nuclear warheads, chemical and biological weapons, anti-personnel weapons such as landmines, and assault-type automatic and semi-automatic weapons.
Cluster munitions are the latest military weapon to draw public attention for their indiscriminate nature, both at the time of the initial attack, as well as for the tendency for a portion of the bomb to remain unexploded, in the ground as a hidden ‘landmine.’

________________________________________
The Congo Global Action Coalition Conference and Lobby Day, scheduled for Nov. 11-13, announced in the Witness in Washington Weekly on Oct. 29, 2007, has been cancelled. Stay tuned for rescheduled dates and further details.
________________________________________
Isaiah 5:16-17 – The Lord is exalted by Justice
But the Lord of Hosts is exalted by justice,
And the Holy God shows himself holy by righteousness.
Then the lambs shall graze as in their pasture,
Fatlings and kids shall feed among the ruins.
________________________________________
Help Us Help You!
To support the work of the Washington Office, send a contribution to:
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
Individual Remittance Processing
P.O. Box 643700
Pittsburgh, PA 15264-3700.
Designate the Washington Office, ECO # 865714.
Or click here to give online: http://www.pcusa.org/washington/support.htm
Thank You.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

IT TAKES AN IDIOT

Some where out there a whole lot of villages (especially in Texas and La La Land) are missing their village idiots. Lots and lots.

Diplomacy was not going to work in Iraq because Saddam was insane and you can not negotiate with a mad man. It did not work with Hitler and it wasn't going to work with Saddam. We were right to put him out of business but then we screwed up the peace. This nation continually wins wars and then screws up the peace. I am afraid that as a nation we are just dumber than a box of rocks when it comes to foreign affairs.

Find a different way of dealing with Iran, a CARROT and STICK APPROACH, not just the stick. Sanctions aren't working because they are turning to Russia, China, N. Korea.

I have spent the past 40 years of my life watching this country taking the long slide down hill in so many ways. And the slide just accelerates as time goes on. It is time for those who believe that America was FOUNDED UNDER GOD and still should be under God to stand up FOR OUR COUNTRY AND OUR RIGHTS.


Zogby: Majority Favor Strikes on Iran

Monday, October 29, 2007 9:47 PM


A majority of likely voters - 52 percent - would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53 percent believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.

The survey results come at a time of increasing U.S. scrutiny of Iran. According to reports from the Associated Press, earlier this month Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program and Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of "serious consequences" if the U.S. were to discover Iran was attempting to devolop a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration also announced new sanctions against Iran.

Democrats (63 percent) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51 percent) and Republicans (44 percent) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71 percent), than Democrats (41 percent) or independents (44 percent). Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election and women (58 percent) are more likely than men (48 percent) to say the same � but there is little difference in support for a U.S. strike against Iran among these groups.

When asked which presidential candidate would be best equipped to deal with Iran � regardless of whether or not they expected the U.S. to attack Iran � 21 percent would most like to see New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the country, while 15 percent would prefer former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and 14 percent would want Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain in charge. Another 10 percent said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would be best equipped to deal with Iran, while Republican Fred Thompson (5 percent), Democrat John Edwards (4 percent) and Republican Mitt Romney (3 percent) were less likely to be viewed as the best leaders to help the U.S. deal with Iran. The telephone poll of 1,028 likely voters nationwide was conducted Oct. 24-27, 2007 and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

Clinton leads strongly among Democrats on the issue, with 35 percent saying she is best equipped to deal with Iran, while 17 percent would prefer Obama and 7 percent view John Edwards as the best choice. Giuliani is the top choice of Republicans (28 percent), followed by McCain (21 percent) and Fred Thompson (9 percent). One in five independents chose Clinton (21 percent) over McCain (16 percent) and Giuliani (11 percent). Clinton was the top choice among women (24 percent), while 14 percent would be more confident with Giuliani in the White House and 11 percent would prefer McCain. Men slightly prefer McCain (18 percent) to Clinton (17 percent) on this issue, while 15 percent said Giuliani is best equipped to deal with Iran. The survey also shows there is a significant amount of uncertainty if any of the long list of declared candidates would be best equipped to deal the Iran � 19 percent overall said they weren�t sure which candidate to choose.

There is considerable division about when a strike on Iran should take place � if at all. Twenty-eight percent believe the U.S. should wait to strike until after the next president is in office while 23 percent would favor a strike before the end of President Bush�s term. Another 29 percent said the U.S. should not attack Iran, and 20 percent were unsure. The view that Iran should not be attacked by the U.S. is strongest among Democrats (37 percent) and independents, but fewer than half as many Republicans (15 percent) feel the same. But Republicans are also more likely to be uncertain on the issue (28 percent).

As the possibility the U.S. my strike Iran captures headlines around the world, many have given thought to the possibility of an attack at home. Two in three (68 percent) believe it is likely that the U.S. will suffer another significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil comparable to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 � of those, 27 percent believe such an attack is very likely. Nearly one in three (31 percent) believe the next significant attack will occur between one and three years from now, 22 percent said they believe the next attack is between three and five years away, and 15 percent said they don�t think the U.S. will be attacked on U.S. soil for at least five years or longer. Just 9 percent believe a significant terrorist attack will take place in the U.S. before the next presidential election.

© 2007 All Rights Reserved.

DAMN DEMOCRATS

When Democrats Control Your Wallet...
Posted by Bobby Eberle

October 30, 2007 at 6:32 am
>> Printer-Friendly Version
There has been much gnashing of teeth over the Republicans inability to control spending. Once a core tenet of conservative philosophy, Republicans in Washington threw that plank aside in pursuit of pork and big-government ideas. Is it any wonder we lost? Americans don't need more spending and more government. We need less! I'm pretty sure the Republicans got the idea. (Being in the minority will do that.)
On the flip side, there is still one issue where Republicans have stood strong -- taxes. Just like the fact that government needs to be smaller, not bigger, taxes need to be lower, not higher. We pay far too much in taxes to feed an ever-growing government. Thankfully, Republicans have helped cut taxes over the years, and the country is better for it. Just take a look at the recent tax proposal by liberal Democrat Charles Rangel, and one will see why we can't let the Democrats win the White House. With control of Congress, the Democrats are one election away from grinding the economy to a halt.
Under the Bush tax cuts, we now see the deficit going down and tax revenues going up. Repeat... the deficit is going down... more money is coming in. Yet Rangel wants to "fix" the tax code. The only way to fix the tax code is to continue to cut taxes, and that's something that won't be coming from Rangel and other liberal Democrats.
As noted by Bloomberg's Kevin Hassett, "Last week, just in time for the Halloween season, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel gave American voters a chilling glimpse of what U.S. tax policy will look like if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008."
For those of you wondering what the details of taxing the rich to pay for Democratic spending proposals might look like, Rangel, a close ally of Hillary Clinton, has provided a tour of the abyss. If the ``mother of all reforms,'' as he calls his tax plan, had a name, it would be Mrs. Bates. But, unlike Norman's mother in the Alfred Hitchcock classic ``Psycho,'' this lady is very much alive.
In terms of revenue, Rangel's reform would be the biggest tax increase in history. Compared to a baseline where President George W. Bush's tax cuts are extended and the dreaded alternative minimum tax isn't allowed to swallow millions of taxpayers whole, the bill raises taxes by a whopping $3.5 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the office of Representative Jim McCrery of Louisiana, the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee.
The Heritage Foundation, in its analysis of the Rangel tax bill, notes that "In the current Congress, the Rangel proposal has no chance of enactment, neither in its current form nor in any recognizable variant. Its importance is as a policy statement of the chief Democratic tax policy writer in the House of Representatives, expressed in black and white. As such, it offers a useful glimpse of where tax policy is likely to go in the next Congress if the chairman is allowed to work his will with a more sympathetic resident occupying the White House."
While complete details are yet to be released, the Heritage Foundation notes from the plan's basic roadmap that "taxes would increase by about a half-trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Much of that increase would fall on small businesses, especially on small manufacturers. The bottom line: higher taxes, fewer jobs, and lower wages."
First is Rangel's plan to "fix" the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). According to the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), "Rangel would get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) -- an ill-conceived plan that never should have been established in the first place -- but effectively resurrects it under a different name on the tax bills of millions of Americans. He boosts the standard deduction, only to erode the benefits of other common deductions. Families who would qualify as upper-middle-class in many metro areas would see their tax rates go as high as 44 percent, compared to the 35 percent or less they're now paying."
The NTU goes on to say that small business would be forced to pay higher self-employment taxes. In addition, the NTU notes that "Rangel claims that '91 million families' will benefit from the scheme, but that includes a spending giveaway to millions receiving the 'Earned Income Credit' -- households that don’t pay taxes anyway." So, part of his "income tax plan" is to give more money to people who don't even pay income tax. This is typical liberal class warfare, and it's not right.
The Heritage Foundation notes that there is a new 4 percent surtax on married filers with adjusted gross incomes (AGIs) above 200,000.
Having recognized the importance of lower marginal tax rates, Mr. Rangel would cut the corporate tax rate with his bill. But then he raises tax rates on individuals and small businesses, indicating a serious condition of economic policy schizophrenia.
Also, the surtax applies to AGI, not taxable income. So while jacking up tax rates, Mr. Rangel has also found a backdoor way to phase down the number of itemized deductions taxpayers can take. Perhaps Mr. Rangel can explain what he has against charitable contributions; or the deduction for state and local taxes; or the home mortgage deduction at a time when the housing industry is reeling.
In Rangel's press release, the Ways and Means Committee chairman states that the legislation will "provide tax relief to more than 90 million working families and cut the corporate tax rate to help American companies stay competitive internationally." Can someone please tell me what the phrase "working families" means??? Doesn't anyone who gets up, goes to work, puts in a long day, and makes money, qualify to be a "hardworking American?" Not according to the Left. Their "working families" phrase is code for a special segment of people that they can pit against the "rich" in order for them to win elections. It's pathetic!
Rangel goes on to say, "The provisions in this bill would reform the tax code to provide a greater sense of equity and fairness that is so critical to our voluntary tax system. ... It has been more than 21 years since Congress and the Administration rolled up their sleeves to discuss tax reform and during that time the tax code has become a jumbled mess of outdated and inequitable provisions that cry out for simplification."
The Republicans should jump all over this bill. It is a giant red flag of what liberal Democrats would do to America if given the opportunity. If Rangel wants to propose huge tax increases under the guise of "fairness," then now is the perfect time for Republicans to fire back. If Rangel wants to "simplify the code," then let's do away with the code all together! The Fair Tax would do away with the income tax all together and shift the focus to consumption.
The more Rangel talks, the more it helps Republicans. Let's hope America is listening.

Monday, October 29, 2007

A politicaly incorrect Politian ahead of his time

A Humbling Lesson:

Congressman Davy Crockett Learns About Limited Government

In the following, excerpted from the book The Life of Colonel David Crockett (1884) compiled by Edward S. Ellis, the famous American frontiersman, war hero, and congressman from Tennessee relates how he learned -- from one of his own backwoods constituents -- the vital importance of heeding the Constitution and the dangers of disregarding its restraints.

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 houseless, 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 the 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 constituent 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 intrusted 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," continued Crockett, "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 to 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 was so fully convinced that he was right, 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 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.'

"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 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-by. 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 every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the word 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 up 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 that 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 -- and the insignificance and worthlessness of 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."

Source: September 20, 1993 issue of The New American

GOOD FOR HIM-KEEP THE FAITH

McCain Lines Up Against Sea Treaty



Sen. John McCain has become the latest presidential candidate publicly to express opposition to ratification of the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

During a call with bloggers, McCain noted in response to a question about LOST: "I do worry a lot about American sovereignty aspects of it, so I would probably vote against it in its present form.�

Other presidential candidates who have recently come out against ratification of LOST include former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson.

LOST defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources.

The United States has signed the treaty, but the Senate has not ratified it.

© 2007 Newsmax. All rights reserved.