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.

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

Friday, October 26, 2007 12:01 AM Article Font Size

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.

OH SO SAD FOR HILARY-POOR POOR BABY

At 63 years young I am definitely a child of the 1960s. No long hair (I was in the Air Force). Loved the music and I still do. Never saw any sense to love in the mud and all of that nonsense. We did enjoy going into San Francisco and into North Beach (Carol Doda and her famous 44s).
Never saw any sense in getting High or drunk.

I have a serious problem when it comes to the Clinton's and some of their pet projects. And I really have a problem WITH any idiot wanting to spend my tax dollars on any thing commemorating or glorifying that culture. Let the witch donate Bill's money, not mine.

Yippee, No Hippie Earmark

October 29, 2007

I’m a child of the ’60s. I had long hair and still have an album with Jimi Hendrix playing the Star Spangled Banner on electric guitar.

Boy, I love that music. But even so, I’m just not for taking taxpayer money to promote the Woodstock generation. That’s just not my bag, man. When it comes to earmarks, I just can’t make the scene.

But baby, New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer sure can. They think one million dollars should be taken from taxpayers and sent to a museum in upstate New York that commemorates Woodstock. They earmarked that cool million in a recent bill.

But, not so fast. Senator Tom Coburn offered an amendment to the bill to kill this earmark. And then a strange thing occurred: sanity broke out over much of the Senate. This million-dollar pet project was defeated, 52 to 42.

“I’m pleased my colleagues took a bold stand today in defense of common sense,” Coburn said in a statement. “Maybe this is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius for taxpayers.”

Tom Schatz of Citizens Against Government Waste quipped, “Taxpayers are dancing in the streets and saying ‘yippee’ over the defeat of this hippie earmark.”

And, as John Lennon probably meant to say, “When you talk about earmarks, don’t you know that you can count me out.”It’s gonna be . . . all right.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Click here to listen to an MP3 audio file of this episode.

NOT ONLY NO, BUT HELL NO

To begin with I am not a yuppie, preppies or any of that other B.S. I am a retired Air Force Veteran who has served his time hell, mentally and physically. I have disabilities relating to my service and because I am a retiree I can not even collect my full amount separate from my retirement check (long sad story involving retirees and the Government). I collect social security (retired at age 62) I come from a reasonably solid middle-class back ground. I serve as an elder in My home church (Presbyterian) and consider my self a reasonably good Christian.

My great-great grand-parents came from Norway, Holland and Italy. NO BODY ever handed them a damn thing on a silver platter. So I do not see why this America of ours is being handed over to illegals on a silver platters courtesy of a bunch of left wing liberals and Damn Democrats,

Illegal is just that, ILLEGAL Illegality on /in any area should be punished, not rewarded.

I am all in favor of the old adage that good fences make good neighbors. Shut down the Borders
tighter than tight. Deal with the Illegals who are here (send them home) and implore a Republican Congress to enact some decent legislation.

Immigration and Municipal ID Cards in San Francisco

Over the past few months I have had the privilege of sitting with some dedicated and thoughtful activists, community organizers and people of faith around the issues of immigration in San Francisco and national-wide.

A pretty grassroots kind of group called together by the FAITHS Program of the SF Foundation, the focus of our conversations have been mainly about the New Sanctuary Movement. Today we talked a little bit about the Municipal ID Card proposal that the SF Board of Supervisors is considering.

Obviously immigration issues are complex regardless of one's political leanings - or at least they should be acknowledged as so - but when we begin to really allow our faith to influence our actions, clarity becomes real. In the case of the current climate of immigration, I am firmly planted on the side of justice and compassion when it comes to the ways we deal with the "aliens in our midst." For me there are just too many biblical mandates that compel me to be on the side of the newcomer, the outcast, the poor . . .

So what do I do? I go to meetings to show solidarity with those who are on the front lines. I try to integrate some messages of justice in ways that are effective at MBCC and try to consistently live my beliefs. But is that enough? Am I just finding ways to stay within my own comfort zones, while claiming solidarity? Compared to some I am stepping way out and to others, I am just another hipster poser progressive. They are both right in many ways and so wrong in others. Thus the dilemma of the middle-class progressive Christian here in San Francisco. *sigh*

I'll keep trying, act when called, show my solidarity, yada yada yada . . . and in the mean time, here is some info on a Hearing that is taking place regarding the San Francisco Municipal ID Card. For more info, please visit Comite de vivienda San Pedro - St. Peter's Housing Committee. And if you wish to be part of this SF gathering of folks, let me know and I'll get you in touch with the organizers.

ID // We all have a right to an identity!

The Municipal ID will:

• Give a photo government issued ID for all San Franciscans, regardless of immigration status.
• Improve access to available services.

Identification for all in a sanctuary city!
The City of San Francisco claims to be a sanctuary city. We need to make our voices heard to make that a reality. This ID is a way for our city to recognize its residents regardless of race, gender, sexuality or immigration status. We live and work in this city and we deserve an identity.

Demand an ID! Come to a Hearing!
Weds. October 24th 2007
1 pm @ SF City Hall

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Immigration and Municipal ID Cards in San Francisco:

Comments

I hope that NY State's win in getting drivers' licenses can be replicated in other cities and states, so that immigrants are able to have some form of identification and be recognized.

You know we often talk about white guilt, but we don't talk about class guilt. And we should be talking about the intersection of all these things more.

I for one am happy to see the yuppies and preppies with their dogs and high-class children's strollers at immigration rallies and marches - it means that our movement is gaining steam and traction across the class lines.

Truly, we ARE America.

Posted by: Power and Politics | 2007.10.18 at 09:38 PM

P&P - Yes, class guilt is HUGE, but does not often translate into the same kind of actions that White guilt does. I think class guilt more often translates into apathy. Still I think that this is a vastly untapped resource for so many movements. Thanks for stopping by.

Posted by: breyeschow | 2007.10.18 at 10:18 PM

Bruce - i think you just need to do what you think is right and just, especially for undocumented people and low income and poor immigrant communities.
you shouldn't feel a need to apologize for it or to feel any kind of guilt either.
Supervisor Ammiano's and the immigrant community's ID card campaign seems to me to be a basic issue of dignity for a significant population of our people in SF and other areas throughout the US.

Posted by: Eric Mar | 2007.10.19 at 10:02 AM

Eric - Thanks. I give thanks that in SF, we are at least looking at these issues. We may be in a kind of bubble, but it is our bubble ;-)

Posted by: breyeschow | 2007.10.19 at 10:20 AM

WHY THE HELL NOT

We have elected just about everyone else. Heavens to murgatroyd we even, gasp, elected a Catholic. Some of our founding fathers were not even Christians, they were Deists. This is part of what of what makes this country so great--That every native born idiot who is dumb enough to want to run for the presidency can do just that. SO WHY NOT A MORMON!!!!!

A Mormon in the Whitehouse? Or a Moronic Media Spectacle?

March 28th, 2007

Hugh Hewitt’s new book, which I have only begun to read, is titled “A Mormon in the Whitehouse?“ It sparks a conversation we need to have among all of us believing, evangelicals, many of whom are holding back on supporting Mit Romney, who is in all ways an excellent candidate for the presidency, due to his devout Mormon status. Admittedly I am only beginning to think through this issue. As one who has and does engage Mormons as often as I possibly can in theological and doctrinal debate, I’m wondering what the outcome of such a presidency might be. If we are holding back merely because “we don’t like Mormons,” we should suck it up and get over our bigotry. That amounts to a “my team against your team” perspective, and it doesn’t merit the time or energy it takes to end it. If we are holding back because we are afraid Romney might use the Whitehouse as a bully pulpit for Mormon doctrine, we should look at how he has used the Governor’s office in Massachussetts. If we have other real political or logistical concerns, we should address those concerns to the extent that we can lay them aside and vote for a candidate who is excellent in all “other” ways.

This is not to say that doctrinal or theological, or even practical concerns over Mormonism are in some way illegitimate. For instance, many Evangelicals would like to engage Mormons on the issue of women’s roles. This is a legitimate concern, but its legitimacy exists within the confines of religious and practical discussion. If our concerns are purely doctrinal or theological, then we should open a new discussion among ourselves and with the Mormons with whom we can speak candidly. But this should never be done in an open forum for the press and media to interpret and use as they wish. Churches have, for centuries, held debates and discussions over doctrinal issues in which matters were settled by simply agreeing to disagree. I’m not necessarily advocating that solution here, but the process is historically in place. What I’m saying is that engagement is good, but open debate of religious issues in the political forum is not necessarily the best form of engagement. As Christians we are called to engage each other on issues of importance, but we are adjured against doing so in public. This, as much as anything else, is the core of Paul’s admonishment to the Corinthian church not to bring their disputes to the civil courts. It shames the cause of Christ. (1 Corinthians 6:1-6)

I have two very good friends who are former Mormons, and who address the issue of Mormonism in a loving and rational manner. Their argument is strong against the doctrines and historical foundations of Mormonism, but it is also strongly in favor of treating people with dignity and love as Christ would have us do. Nobody ever castigates them as “Mormon haters,” a term I have heard applied to many other Christian apologists who only see errant doctrine and not the people involved. In a book, recently published, my friend Carma details her journey from deep roots in historic Mormonism to a deep faith in historical Biblical Christianity. [1] Never once does she engage in the type of irascible rhetoric which is so common in “Answer Man” type apologetics. In her own effortless way Carma demonstrates for us that the truth will win over all oppressors if it is only given a chance. No political discussion is necessary.

Certainly a Romney presidency would bring growth and a furtherance of legitimacy to Mormonism, a fact which ires many Evangelicals and especially fundamentalists. However, while many might find such a situation irritating to their sensibilities, here is a man who holds virtually ALL of the political virtues we do. The fact that we disagree with his religious doctrines (and I am one who engages Mormons in debate often) could also be seen as an opportunity to finally engage the Mormon church in a legitimate national conversational debate regarding their foundations and beliefs. We could end up a Romney presidency with a slightly larger Mormon church that no longer is able to present itself as “just another of the many alternatives within Christianity.” Or better yet, perhaps a recant on the errant doctrines and a move toward orthodoxy, as we have seen with the Worldwide Church of God: As I have said before, “better to personally and privately engage those with whom we disagree than let the world participate in our disagreement.”

In view of the other candidates I can see who could truly win this presidential race in 2008, Mr. Romney, if he can win, would represent more of the agenda we all personally espouse than anyone else. Imagine, if you will, Hillary Clinton in the People’s House!

Here’s the question I’m asking people. Suppose you have a business, say , a gas station or a grocery store, or even a construction firm. And suppose you have dug a financial hole for yourself, and are facing some really terrible times ahead. But suppose you have a Mormon friend who has demonstrated that he is an absolute genius at retrieving beleaguered business from the brink of despair, and that friend offers to help you out of your mess. Would you say “no thanks?” Even if you knew that your Mormon friend might likely “call in his marker” at some future time, asking you to do something or say something nice about his religious perspective, you’d still be more likely to say “yes, thank you.”

As we face further corrections in the housing market, and probably on Wall Street as well

As interest rates appear to be rising and we see a slowdown looming on the jobs horizon,

As the war continues and a real “Thatcher-esque” strategy is needed to win and continue winning,

As the war on our borders appears solvable if only we had the political starch in Washington to solve it,
I think we’d be MORONS not to at least consider Mit Romney!

Here’s what the News Max Magazine special edition has to say about Romney:

…(this) candidate is Reaganesque: a man with a sunny disposition. On his desk he has a plate that states ‘America is Never Stuck.’”

“He has taken more conservative positions than Giuliani and McCain on immigration policy and abortion.”

“Grover Norquist notes that Romney was the first major candidate to sign Americans for Tax Reform’s pledge to oppose any effort to raise marginal income tax rates.”

“Unlike McCain and Giuliani, Romney says, ‘I have worked in the world of employers and employees for all of my career. I understand what makes us more competitive as a nation, what makes us less competitive. I know why jobs grow and why they’re eliminated.’”

Romney emphasizes four priorities if elected president:

1. Defeating the Jihadists,
2. Competing with Asia,
3. Stopping run-away spending, and
4. Affirming America’s culture and values

Surely we can get past the issue of the doctrinal and theological confusion of Mormonism to elect a candidate who has the will and the knowhow to accomplish what we want to see done! If not, then where are we to look for those who will lead our nation?

[1] Naylor, Carma: A Mormon’s Unexpected Journey 2006 Enumclaw WA Winepress Publishers

1. I would vote for Mr. Romney. The fact that he is LDS, Conservative Republican Govoner in a Democratic liberal state says enough for me.

   by Jeff March 28th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
   

2. Thanks for the comment, Jeff.

   by WFS April 6th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
   

3. I really appreciate your open minded view point, and your willingness to set aside personal opinions for a greater good. I am a Mormon and people frequently make their differences with Mormons the focus of attention instead of seeing how much good we have in common with mainstream Christianity.

   by Velyn Anderson April 16th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
   
4. 

   Thanks for your comment, Velyn. I just think that political things should be decided, where appropriate, on the basis of political information and not other stuff. Sometimes religious considerations enter in. Sen. Barak Obama’s dodging of the issue of his Muslim upbringing, for instance, is an issue that probably should have more exposure. But I honestly think that Gov. Romney’s LDS persuasion could be a good thing - could inspire and give place to a more factually correct and open conversation on the differences between Mormonism and orthodoxy. I want to engage Mormons on the issues of their faith, but I don’t want to do it in the political arena.

   by wfstapleton April 20th, 2007 at 9:32 am
   

5. Good article Bill. The only downside I can see at a casual glance is the potential perspective of the culture at large who tend to throw semi like-minded people into the same pot of soup, suggesting that if we campaign for a Mormon candidate then we must support everything about them, even their theology. To draw distinctions we are then forced to introduce theology into the political debate with an, “it’s not that simple,” kind of approach, which is what we’re trying not to do… Catch 22?
   I ran into this in a Board of Directors that I was involved with where there was a Mormon director who saw himself as just another Christian, just like me. While it inspired debate, his underlying assumption that we were all basically the same unnerved me a bit. I wonder if the culture would do the same thing with evangelical support of Mr. Romney. “Hey, they used to view this as a cult, now they are campaigning for his election” - bottom line, they must have settled any differences and now be pretty much the same. What a beautiful world.

   I’m not disagreeing with your premise, I think it’s exactly right and precisely how I personally view the issue, I’m just wondering how it might take shape out in Spin-land.

   by Ed April 22nd, 2007 at 9:49 am