ONE NATION UNDER GOD!
This is for those modern day "liberals"/atheists/left wing nuts, etc etc who want us all to to believe that this nation was not "founded under God" by Christians. Revisionists is another word that fits those who would deny and denigrate our history.
This Nation was founded under God/Divine Creator by men who were primarily Christians.
They were true liberals in that they upset some very conservative apple carts. I look upon the modern day Conservatives as the champions and protectors of what those brave men brought about at the risk of their lives, liberty and property. Had they lost we might very well still be speaking The King's English. But they could not lose because they were a unique group of individuals and intellectuals meeting at the right time in history and the right place on Planet Earth. Never before, and never since, that time have those very propitious circumstances taken place. Just as Planet Earth was not created by pure dumb chance, neither was this great nation of ours. God, the Divine Creator of us all, played the dominant role.
Todays 'liberals', with their roots in the 1930's world events and history, would destroy that which was wrought on the shores of this nation. Bought and paid for by the blood, sweat, tears, toil and deaths of good honest American patriots.
The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
________________________________________
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
Religious Affiliation of the
Founding Fathers
of the United States of America
Related Pages:
- Religious Affiliation of First U.S. Congress
- Religious Affiliation of the Modern U.S. Congress
- Religious Affiliation of U.S. Presidents
- Religious Affiliation of the U.S. Supreme Court
On this Page:
- signers of the Declaration of Independence
- signers of the Articles of Confederation
- Constitutional Convention delegates including signers of the U.S. Constitution
Ennumerating the Founding Fathers
The three major foundational documents of the United States of America are the Declaration of Independence (July 1776), the Articles of Confederation (drafted 1777, ratified 1781) and the Constitution of the United States of America (1789). There are a total of 143 signatures on these documents, representing 118 different signers. (Some individuals signed more than one document.)
There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. There were 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation. All 55 delegates who participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 are regarded as Founding Fathers, in fact, they are often regarded as the Founding Fathers because it is this group that actually debated, drafted and signed the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis for the country's political and legal system. Only 39 delegates actually signed the document, however, meaning there were 16 non-signing delegates - individuals who were Constitutional Convention delegates but were not signers of the Constitution.
There were 95 Senators and Representatives in the First Federal Congress. If one combines the total number of signatures on the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution with the non-signing Constitutional Convention delegates, and then adds to that sum the number of congressmen in the First Federal Congress, one obtains a total of 238 "slots" or "positions" in these groups which one can classify as "Founding Fathers" of the United States. Because 40 individuals had multiple roles (they signed multiple documents and/or also served in the First Federal Congress), there are 204 unique individuals in this group of "Founding Fathers." These are the people who did one or more of the following:
- signed the Declaration of Independence
- signed the Articles of Confederation
- attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
- signed the Constitution of the United States of America
- served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
- served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress
The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an "American Founding Father." But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more.
Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
Founding
Fathers % of
Founding
Fathers
Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204
NOTES: The table above counts people and not "roles," meaning that individuals have not been counted multiple times if they appear on more than one of the lists above. Roger Sherman, for example, signed all three foundational documents and he was a Representative in the First Federal Congress, but he has been counted only once.
In the table above, some people have been counted more than once because they changed religious affiliation from one denomination to another. Thus, the individual amounts added together total more than 100%. This method is used because it results in accurate numbers for each individual religious affiliation. For example, a total of 7 Quakers are shown in the table above. There were indeed 7 Quakers who were in this group. (However, not all of these were life-long Quakers.) For the most part, very few Founding Fathers switched denomination during their lifetime (less than 8%), so double-counting has occurred only rarely in this table. Quakers, in fact, are more likely to have switched denominations than members of any other religious denomination. Along with taking up arms and supporting military action against the British, a large proportion of Quaker Founding Father officially renounced or were expelled from the ardently pacifistic denomination they had been raised in and joined another denomination (usually Episcopalianism).
Also, note that the proportions shown (percentage of each religious affiliation out of the total group of Founding Fathers) is the proportion out of Founders whose religious affiliation is known. The religious affiliation of a significant number of signers of the Articles of Confederation is not known, but if that information was available, it is expected that such information would not change the overall proportions signifcantly.
________________________________________
Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the
Declaration of Independence
Religious Affiliation # of
signers % of
signers
Episcopalian/Anglican 32 57.1%
Congregationalist 13 23.2%
Presbyterian 12 21.4%
Quaker 2 3.6%
Unitarian or Universalist 2 3.6%
Catholic 1 1.8%
TOTAL 56 100%
Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation
Charles Carroll Maryland Catholic
Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
William Williams Connecticut Congregationalist
Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist
Lyman Hall Georgia Congregationalist
Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist
Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Whipple New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist
John Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
Robert Treat Paine Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
George Walton Georgia Episcopalian
John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian
George Ross Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Thomas Lynch Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Arthur Middleton South Carolina Episcopalian
Edward Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian
Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian
George Read Delaware Episcopalian
Caesar Rodney Delaware Episcopalian
Samuel Chase Maryland Episcopalian
William Paca Maryland Episcopalian
Thomas Stone Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
Francis Hopkinson New Jersey Episcopalian
Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian
Lewis Morris New York Episcopalian
William Hooper North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Morton Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Stephen Hopkins Rhode Island Episcopalian
Carter Braxton Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Harrison Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Nelson Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Jefferson Virginia Episcopalian (Deist)
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
Button Gwinnett Georgia Episcopalian; Congregationalist
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian
Joseph Hewes North Carolina Quaker, Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker, Episcopalian
Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian
Matthew Thornton New Hampshire Presbyterian
Abraham Clark New Jersey Presbyterian
John Hart New Jersey Presbyterian
Richard Stockton New Jersey Presbyterian
John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian
William Floyd New York Presbyterian
Philip Livingston New York Presbyterian
James Smith Pennsylvania Presbyterian
George Taylor Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania Presbyterian
The signers of the Declaration of Independence were a profoundly intelligent, religious and ethically-minded group. Four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were current or former full-time preachers, and many more were the sons of clergymen. Other professions held by signers include lawyers, merchants, doctors and educators. These individuals, too, were for the most part active churchgoers and many contributed significantly to their churches both with contributions as well as their service as lay leaders. The signers were members of religious denominations at a rate that was significantly higher than average for the American Colonies during the late 1700s.
These signers have long inspired deep admiration among both secularists (who appreciate the non-denominational nature of the Declaration) and by traditional religionists (who appreciate the Declaration's recognition of God as the source of the rights enumerated by the document). Lossing's seminal 1848 collection of biographies of the signers of the Declaration of Independence echoed widely held sentiments held then and now that there was divine intent or inspiration behind the Declaration of Independence. Lossing matter-of-factly identified the signers as "instruments of Providence" who have "gone to receive their reward in the Spirit Land."
From: B. J. Lossing, Signers of the Declaration of Independence, George F. Cooledge & Brother: New York (1848) [reprinted in Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, WallBuilder Press: Aledo, Texas (1995)], pages 7-12:
From no point of view can the Declaration of American Independence, the causes which led to its adoption, and the events which marked its maintenance, be observed without exciting sentiments of profound veneration for the men who were the prominent actors in that remarkable scene in the drama of the world's history...
The signing of that instrument was a solemn act, and required great firmness and patriotism in those who committed it... neither firmness nor patriotism was wanting in that august body...
Such were the men unto whose keeping, as instruments of Providence, the destinies of America were for the time intrusted; and it has been well remarked, that men, other than such as these,--an ignorant, untaught mass, like those who have formed the physical elements of other revolutionary movements, without sufficient intellect to guide and control them--could not have conceived, planned, and carried into execution, such a mighty movement, one so fraught with tangible marks of political wisdom, as the American Revolution...
Their bodies now have all returned to their kindred dust in the grave, and their souls have gone to receive their reward in the Spirit Land.
From: Robert G. Ferris (editor), Signers of the Declaration: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Declaration of Independence, published by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. (revised edition 1975), pages 27-28:
Liberally endowed as a whole with courage and sense of purpose, the signers [of the Declaration of Independence] consisted of a distinguished group of individuals. Although heterogeneous in background, education, experience, and accommplishments, at the time of the signing they were practically all men of means and represented an elite cross section of 18th-century American leadership. Everyone one of them of them had achieved prominence in his colony, but only a few enjoyed a national reputation.
The signers were those individuals who happened to be Delegates to Congress at the time... The signers possessed many basic similarities. Most were American-born and of Anglo-Saxon origin. The eight foreign-born... were all natives of the British Isles. Except for Charles Carroll, a Roman Catholic, and a few Deists, every one subscribed to Protestantism. For the most part basically political nonextremists, many at first had hesitated at separation let alone rebellion.
________________________________________
Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the
Articles of Confederation
Religious Affiliation # of
signers % of
signers
Episcopalian/Anglican 14 29%
Congregationalist 9 19%
Presbyterian 4 8%
Catholic 1 2%
Quaker 1 2%
Huguenot 1 2%
Lutheran 1 2%
Protestant, denomination unknown 18 38%
TOTAL 48 100%
Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation
Daniel Carroll Maryland Catholic
Andrew Adams Connecticut Congregationalist
Richard Hutson South Carolina Congregationalist
Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist
Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist
John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist
Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist
Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian
Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian
Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian
Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
John Banister Virginia Episcopalian
James Duane New York Episcopalian
Edward Langworthy Georgia Episcopalian
Gouverneur Morris New York Episcopalian
Nicholas Van Dyke Delaware Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Cornelius Harnett North Carolina Episcopalian (Deist)
John Dickinson Delaware Quaker; Episcopalian
Henry Laurens South Carolina Huguenot
John Hanson Maryland Lutheran
Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian
John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian
John Walton Georgia Presbyterian
Nathaniel Scudder New Jersey Presbyterian
William Clingan Pennsylvania Protestant, denomination unknown
Joseph Reed Pennsylvania Protestant, denomination unknown
Daniel Roberdeau Pennsylvania Protestant, denomination unknown
Jonathan Bayard Smith Pennsylvania Protestant, denomination unknown
Francis Dana Massachusetts Protestant, denomination unknown
Samuel Holten Massachusetts Protestant, denomination unknown
James Lovell Massachusetts Protestant, denomination unknown
Henry Marchant Rhode Island Protestant, denomination unknown
John Collins Rhode Island Protestant, denomination unknown
Thomas Adams Virginia Protestant, denomination unknown
John Harvie Virginia Protestant, denomination unknown
John Mathews South Carolina Protestant, denomination unknown
William Henry Drayton South Carolina Protestant, denomination unknown
William Duer New York Protestant, denomination unknown
Titus Hosmer Connecticut Protestant, denomination unknown
Edward Telfair Georgia Protestant, denomination unknown
John Wentworth Jr. New Hampshire Protestant, denomination unknown
John Williams North Carolina Protestant, denomination unknown
________________________________________
Religious Affiliation of the Delegates to the
Constitutional Convention of 1787, including the
Signers of the Constitution of the United States of America
There were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 at which the U.S. Constitution was drafted and signed. All participated in the proceedings which resulted in the Constitution, but only 39 of these delegates were actually signers of the document.
From: Robert G. Ferris (editor), Signers of the Constitution: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Constitution, published by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. (revised edition 1976), page 138:
Most of the [signers of the Constitution] married and fathered children. Sherman sired the largest family, numbering 15 by two wives... Three (Baldwin, Gilman, and Jenifer) were lifetime bachelors. In terms of religious affiliation, the men mirrored the overwhelmingly Protestant character of American religious life at the time and were members of various denominations. Only two, Carroll and Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics.
Religious Affiliation # of
delegates % of
delegates
Episcopalian/Anglican 31 56.4%
Presbyterian 16 29.1%
Congregationalist 8 14.5%
Quaker 3 5.5%
Catholic 2 3.6%
Methodist 2 3.6%
Lutheran 2 3.6%
Dutch Reformed 2 3.6%
TOTAL 55 100%
Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation
Daniel Carroll Maryland Catholic
Thomas Fitzsimons Pennsylvania Catholic
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
Nathaniel Gorham Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Langdon New Hampshire Congregationalist
Nicholas Gilman New Hampshire Congregationalist
Abraham Baldwin Georgia Congregationalist; Episcopalian
William Samuel Johnson Connecticut Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Madison Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Read Delaware Episcopalian
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Maryland Episcopalian
David Brearly New Jersey Episcopalian
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Sr. North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Gouverneur Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Pierce Butler South Carolina Episcopalian
George Washington Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
William Blount North Carolina Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian
Rufus King Massachusetts Episcopalian; Congregationalist
Jacob Broom Delaware Lutheran
William Few Georgia Methodist
Richard Bassett Delaware Methodist
Gunning Bedford Jr. Delaware Presbyterian
James McHenry Maryland Presbyterian
William Livingston New Jersey Presbyterian
William Paterson New Jersey Presbyterian
Hugh Williamson North Carolina Presbyterian
Jared Ingersoll Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Alexander Hamilton New York Huguenot; Presbyterian; Episcopalian
Jonathan Dayton New Jersey Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Blair Virginia Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Dickinson Delaware Quaker; Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker; Episcopalian
Thomas Mifflin Pennsylvania Quaker; Lutheran
Name of Non-Signing Delegate State Religious Affiliation
Oliver Ellsworth Connecticut Congregationalist
Caleb Strong Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Lansing, Jr. New York Dutch Reformed
Robert Yates New York Dutch Reformed
William Houstoun Georgia Episcopalian
William Leigh Pierce Georgia Episcopalian
Luther Martin Maryland Episcopalian
John F. Mercer Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
George Mason Virginia Episcopalian
Edmund J. Randolph Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
James McClurg Virginia Presbyterian
William C. Houston New Jersey Presbyterian
William R. Davie North Carolina Presbyterian
Alexander Martin North Carolina Presbyterian
________________________________________
Multiple Roles
Of course, virtually all of the "Founding Fathers" had multiple roles in the formation of the country, in the broad sense that takes into account military leadership, financial sponsorship, various miscellaneous state and federal positions, etc. But there were many individuals who had multiple roles among categories of Founding Fathers enumerated on this page. That is, they signed more than one of the foundational documents (the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution) or they signed one (or more) of these documents and also served in the First Federal Congress. These individuals with "multiple roles" were: Abraham Baldwin; Benjamin Franklin; Charles Carroll; Daniel Carroll; Elbridge Gerry; Francis Lewis; Francis Lightfoot Lee; George Clymer; George Read; Gouverneur Morris; Hugh Williamson; James Wilson; John Dickinson; John Hancock; John Penn; John Witherspoon; Josiah Bartlett; Nicholas Gilman; Oliver Wolcott; Pierce Butler; Richard Bassett; Richard Henry Lee; Robert Morris; Roger Sherman; Rufus King; Samuel Adams; Samuel Huntington; Thomas Fitzsimons; Thomas Heyward Jr.; Thomas McKean; William Ellery; William Few; William Floyd; William Paterson; William Samuel Johnson; James Madison Jr.; John Langdon; Caleb Strong; Oliver Ellsworth; George Wythe.
________________________________________
Please submit suggestions, comments, corrections, etc. to webmaster@adherents.com.
Religion of Founding Fathers / religious affiliation of American Founding Fathers webpage created 4 November 2005. Last modified 7 December 2005.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
2ND AMENDMENT EROSION
Schwarzenegger is married to a member of the Kennedy clan, right? Has their liberal gun control philosophy rubbed off on the Terminator Man??? His wife Maria toed the family line in endorsing the family's choice for prez. a damned liberal. And Arnold endorsed a liberal Senator masquerading as a Conservative Republican. They all know that the 2nd amendment will never be overturned completely so they just chip away at it in the hope that sooner or later it will mean absolutely nothing. It will remain just a figment of a freedom that once was.
Remember 2 things: guns don't kill people, people kill people.
when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.
People don't need a gun to kill, guns just make it more convenient and less personal. outlaw guns and you might as well outlaw cars, trucks aircraft knives razor blades fertilizer, etc, etc, etc. When it comes right down to it why not outlaw hands, feet, heads, etc. All of those deadly body parts can be used to kill someone. Just ask the Terminator, or Rambo, or...........
Schwarzenegger Sides With Gun-Control Advocates
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
October 15, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the Crime Gun Identification Act over the weekend, and that means gun sellers by 2010 - if there are any left in the state by that time -- will have to use "microstamping" technology on every semiautomatic pistol they sell.
The new law, AB 1471, requires information about a gun's make, model and identification number to be laser engraved onto the gun's firing pin. Theoretically, the information would transfer itself onto the bullet cartridge when the pistol is fired, allowing police to match bullet casings found at crime scenes with the gun that fired the bullet.
Gun control groups say the new law will help police solve crimes.
"We applaud Gov. Schwarzenegger for taking a bold step to solve gun murders in California," said Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke. "This ground-breaking law gives police officers a powerful tool to apprehend armed criminals and gang members before they strike again," he added.
According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Schwarzenegger "has set a new national standard for the rest of the country to follow."
But critics say the bill is back-door gun control. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association of the firearms industry, accused Gov. Schwarzenegger of betraying law-abiding gun owners, retailers and hunters by signing the bill.
First of all the "microstamping" technology is "flawed," as indicated by multiple studies, the NSSF said in a news release.
Criminals will be able to remove the laser engraving in moments, using common household tools, the group said. And it would be easy for criminals to scatter microstamped cartridges from other guns at crime scenes to confuse police, critics say.
Some say the new law will dry up gun sales in California - and that may be the point:
"By signing the microstamping legislation, Governor Schwarzenegger chose to disregard warnings that major firearms manufacturers would be forced to abandon the California market altogether rather than bear the astronomical costs associated with reconfiguring the manufacturing and assembly processes necessary for microstamping," NSSF said.
"Governor Schwarzenegger has now effectively banned more firearms than Senators Kennedy, Feinstein and Schumer combined," said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel.
"The governor's decision to mandate this unreliable technology is clearly one of family politics, not sound public policy," said Keane, referring to Senator Ted Kennedy, the uncle of the governor's wife, who has announced plans to introduce a federal microstamping bill.
NSSF also noted that according to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, firearms used in crimes are mostly old guns -- beyond the reach of microstamping legislation.
Save the condors
In another blow to Second Amendment supporters, Gov. Schwarzenegger also signed a bill banning lead ammunition in certain hunting areas of the state.
Assembly Bill 821, backed by "anti-hunting extremists," is intended to save the California Condor from lead poisoning -- despite the fact that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that the birds are getting sick from ingesting ammunition fragments, NSSF said.
The group said Schwarzenegger was advised on the issue by Marty Wilson -- "his political adviser who entered a business relationship this year with the Audubon Society -- an anti-hunting organization fighting to ban lead ammunition."
The decision to ban lead ammunition in Condor habitat will have far-reaching implications, Keane noted.
"A study by the Responsive Management Company found that if a ban on lead ammunition were to become law, 24 percent of hunters would hunt outside the state, hunt less or stop hunting altogether. This, in turn, affects the retailers of hunting equipment, their employees and the small mom-and-pop businesses that run lodges and restaurants that hunters patronize."
NSSF said a ban on lead ammunition could cost 2,230 jobs, $15 million in state and federal income tax, $3.9 million per year in hunting license costs, $131 million a year in retail sales and $624,000 in federal excise tax money normally returned to California."
Keane called the governor's decision to sign the two gun-related bills "stunningly bad public policy decisions."
"To ban traditional ammunition without evidence [that it is harming condors] and to mandate a flawed [microstamping] technology that criminals will laugh at could very well see every major firearms manufacturer abandon the California market," he said.
"Today is a sad day for sportsmen, gun-owners, small business owners, firearms enthusiasts and indeed wildlife in the Golden State," concluded Keane.
See Earlier Stories:
Gun Control Bill Heads to California Governor (Sept. 11, 2007)
Gun 'Microstamping' Bill Passes California Senate (Aug. 25, 2006)
Remember 2 things: guns don't kill people, people kill people.
when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.
People don't need a gun to kill, guns just make it more convenient and less personal. outlaw guns and you might as well outlaw cars, trucks aircraft knives razor blades fertilizer, etc, etc, etc. When it comes right down to it why not outlaw hands, feet, heads, etc. All of those deadly body parts can be used to kill someone. Just ask the Terminator, or Rambo, or...........
Schwarzenegger Sides With Gun-Control Advocates
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
October 15, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the Crime Gun Identification Act over the weekend, and that means gun sellers by 2010 - if there are any left in the state by that time -- will have to use "microstamping" technology on every semiautomatic pistol they sell.
The new law, AB 1471, requires information about a gun's make, model and identification number to be laser engraved onto the gun's firing pin. Theoretically, the information would transfer itself onto the bullet cartridge when the pistol is fired, allowing police to match bullet casings found at crime scenes with the gun that fired the bullet.
Gun control groups say the new law will help police solve crimes.
"We applaud Gov. Schwarzenegger for taking a bold step to solve gun murders in California," said Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke. "This ground-breaking law gives police officers a powerful tool to apprehend armed criminals and gang members before they strike again," he added.
According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Schwarzenegger "has set a new national standard for the rest of the country to follow."
But critics say the bill is back-door gun control. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association of the firearms industry, accused Gov. Schwarzenegger of betraying law-abiding gun owners, retailers and hunters by signing the bill.
First of all the "microstamping" technology is "flawed," as indicated by multiple studies, the NSSF said in a news release.
Criminals will be able to remove the laser engraving in moments, using common household tools, the group said. And it would be easy for criminals to scatter microstamped cartridges from other guns at crime scenes to confuse police, critics say.
Some say the new law will dry up gun sales in California - and that may be the point:
"By signing the microstamping legislation, Governor Schwarzenegger chose to disregard warnings that major firearms manufacturers would be forced to abandon the California market altogether rather than bear the astronomical costs associated with reconfiguring the manufacturing and assembly processes necessary for microstamping," NSSF said.
"Governor Schwarzenegger has now effectively banned more firearms than Senators Kennedy, Feinstein and Schumer combined," said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel.
"The governor's decision to mandate this unreliable technology is clearly one of family politics, not sound public policy," said Keane, referring to Senator Ted Kennedy, the uncle of the governor's wife, who has announced plans to introduce a federal microstamping bill.
NSSF also noted that according to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, firearms used in crimes are mostly old guns -- beyond the reach of microstamping legislation.
Save the condors
In another blow to Second Amendment supporters, Gov. Schwarzenegger also signed a bill banning lead ammunition in certain hunting areas of the state.
Assembly Bill 821, backed by "anti-hunting extremists," is intended to save the California Condor from lead poisoning -- despite the fact that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that the birds are getting sick from ingesting ammunition fragments, NSSF said.
The group said Schwarzenegger was advised on the issue by Marty Wilson -- "his political adviser who entered a business relationship this year with the Audubon Society -- an anti-hunting organization fighting to ban lead ammunition."
The decision to ban lead ammunition in Condor habitat will have far-reaching implications, Keane noted.
"A study by the Responsive Management Company found that if a ban on lead ammunition were to become law, 24 percent of hunters would hunt outside the state, hunt less or stop hunting altogether. This, in turn, affects the retailers of hunting equipment, their employees and the small mom-and-pop businesses that run lodges and restaurants that hunters patronize."
NSSF said a ban on lead ammunition could cost 2,230 jobs, $15 million in state and federal income tax, $3.9 million per year in hunting license costs, $131 million a year in retail sales and $624,000 in federal excise tax money normally returned to California."
Keane called the governor's decision to sign the two gun-related bills "stunningly bad public policy decisions."
"To ban traditional ammunition without evidence [that it is harming condors] and to mandate a flawed [microstamping] technology that criminals will laugh at could very well see every major firearms manufacturer abandon the California market," he said.
"Today is a sad day for sportsmen, gun-owners, small business owners, firearms enthusiasts and indeed wildlife in the Golden State," concluded Keane.
See Earlier Stories:
Gun Control Bill Heads to California Governor (Sept. 11, 2007)
Gun 'Microstamping' Bill Passes California Senate (Aug. 25, 2006)
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
OBAMA WHO???????
Hillary is a brainless bitch who, as far as I know, has never had an original idea in her whole life and the thought of her in any national office scares the crap out of me.....but this Peter Panish wonder kid from Illinois scares me even more. He has shown no respect for the American flag (watch reruns of the debates--he stands with his hands at his sides). It has been said that IF he is elected Prez he might appoint John Edwards to be Attorney General. Edwards is the man who was asked if he thought handgun ownership was a right or a privilege. His response,'it is a privilege not a right' This from a man who took an oath to uphold the constitution and the rights there-in. He must have read a version of that precious document that was thought up in some liberal minded back room some where on the road to hell.
Get IBD Editorials Via Email
Email To Friend | Print
Barack Guevara
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, February 12, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election 2008: How is it a front-runner for the highest office in the land can reject an American flag on his lapel but permit the display of a huge Cuban flag at one of his offices, emblazoned with a mass murderer's mug?
Related Topics: Election 2008 | Latin America & Caribbean
Improbable as it sounds, it's true. Barack Obama, displaying the same "anything goes" standard of patriotism he showed when he ostentatiously refused to wear a U.S. flag in his lapel, now shows he's got a whole different idea about patriotism.
One of Obama's volunteer offices in Houston was caught operating under a huge flag of communist Cuba with Che Guevara's face printed on it, according to images shown on Fox News. Flak from bloggers ensued — followed, of course, by spin control.
But rather than repudiate the image, Obama would only call it "inappropriate," apparently without insisting it be taken down. That contrasts with his dismissal of his Senate colleagues who wear lapel flags as "hypocrites." Some hypocrites.
The display of the Castroite flag with Che's picture on it sends a particularly disturbing message about his campaign. Apparently, Obama tends to attract the kind of people who think of mass murderers like Che and Fidel as romantic revolutionaries. Those same people see Obama as a man with a messianic message. These are the voters he'll be indebted to should he win higher office.
Worse yet, it signals that a U.S. commander in chief tolerates supporters with loyalties to nations other than the U.S., including those loyal to enemy states that spy on and seek to harm the U.S.
It coincides uncomfortably with Obama's call for no-strings-attached diplomatic relations with communist Cuba. He's even offered to meet with the dictators of Cuba, sanctimoniously implying that other administrations had no good reason for not doing so.
Obama's naive idealism is based on a false understanding of history. Cuba is a nation that aimed Soviet missiles at us in 1962 and is likely to do the same if and when Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez gets advanced weapons from Russia or Iran. That's not all:
• Also in 1962, Cuba attempted to launch the first 9/11-style attack on New York's subways and department stores — with the mastermind behind that none other than Che Guevara himself.
• In 1982 it tried to get the USSR to launch nukes at the U.S.
• In 1996, Cuba shot down two U.S. planes, killing six Americans whose only "crime" was trying to rescue Cuban refugees at sea. Had a political candidate in Latin America pasted up a picture of Che at election time, there'd be no doubt where he stood — ones who did just that are now running countries with names like Bolivia and Venezuela. Is that what Obama really stands for?
Get IBD Editorials Via Email
Email To Friend | Print
Barack Guevara
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, February 12, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election 2008: How is it a front-runner for the highest office in the land can reject an American flag on his lapel but permit the display of a huge Cuban flag at one of his offices, emblazoned with a mass murderer's mug?
Related Topics: Election 2008 | Latin America & Caribbean
Improbable as it sounds, it's true. Barack Obama, displaying the same "anything goes" standard of patriotism he showed when he ostentatiously refused to wear a U.S. flag in his lapel, now shows he's got a whole different idea about patriotism.
One of Obama's volunteer offices in Houston was caught operating under a huge flag of communist Cuba with Che Guevara's face printed on it, according to images shown on Fox News. Flak from bloggers ensued — followed, of course, by spin control.
But rather than repudiate the image, Obama would only call it "inappropriate," apparently without insisting it be taken down. That contrasts with his dismissal of his Senate colleagues who wear lapel flags as "hypocrites." Some hypocrites.
The display of the Castroite flag with Che's picture on it sends a particularly disturbing message about his campaign. Apparently, Obama tends to attract the kind of people who think of mass murderers like Che and Fidel as romantic revolutionaries. Those same people see Obama as a man with a messianic message. These are the voters he'll be indebted to should he win higher office.
Worse yet, it signals that a U.S. commander in chief tolerates supporters with loyalties to nations other than the U.S., including those loyal to enemy states that spy on and seek to harm the U.S.
It coincides uncomfortably with Obama's call for no-strings-attached diplomatic relations with communist Cuba. He's even offered to meet with the dictators of Cuba, sanctimoniously implying that other administrations had no good reason for not doing so.
Obama's naive idealism is based on a false understanding of history. Cuba is a nation that aimed Soviet missiles at us in 1962 and is likely to do the same if and when Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez gets advanced weapons from Russia or Iran. That's not all:
• Also in 1962, Cuba attempted to launch the first 9/11-style attack on New York's subways and department stores — with the mastermind behind that none other than Che Guevara himself.
• In 1982 it tried to get the USSR to launch nukes at the U.S.
• In 1996, Cuba shot down two U.S. planes, killing six Americans whose only "crime" was trying to rescue Cuban refugees at sea. Had a political candidate in Latin America pasted up a picture of Che at election time, there'd be no doubt where he stood — ones who did just that are now running countries with names like Bolivia and Venezuela. Is that what Obama really stands for?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)