We will stand alone.....
Below please find a special message from our sister company, Regnery Publishing. We occasionally share opportunities we believe you as a valued customer may want to know about. To manage your e-mail delivery preferences, click the link in the footer of this message.
America Alone: Soon to Be Banned in Canada
What is this book about?
Well, it's about to be banned in Canada.
Labeled as "flagrantly Islamophobic" by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the New York Times bestseller America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, is now in paperback—and ironically could soon be sold in America alone.
Why is America Alone so controversial? Acclaimed author and journalist Mark Steyn answers this question—and more—in his witty and provocative new introduction.
Maybe it's because America Alone is "alarmist" (according to Canada). Or maybe, just maybe, it's because Steyn proclaims the unspeakable, yet undeniable truth: the Western world is falling prey to the unrelenting tide of radical Islam, demographically and ideologically. And if we don't do something soon, one day we'll wake up to the end of the world as we know it: the end of church bells, replaced by the muezzin's call to prayer. The end of free speech, replaced by strict, religious-based censorship. The end of liberty and justice for all, replaced by Sharia law.
Think this can't happen? Guess again. The future, as Steyn shows, belongs to the fecund and confident. And the Islamists are both, while the West is looking ever more like the ruins of a civilization. All is not lost though: America can survive, prosper, and defend its freedom. But only if it becomes self-reliant, stays true to itself, and fights for the conviction that our country really is the world's last, best hope.
If we don't stand for something, we'll fall for anything...Canada already has.
Click below to save 20% or more off bookstore prices!
This e-mail was sent to supergramps.duane@gmail.com because you are subscribed to
New Book Announcements from Regnery Publishing.
To unsubscribe or to update your email delivery preferences, click here.
Regnery Publishing, Inc. | One Massachusetts Ave, NW | Washington, DC 20001
Monday, April 7, 2008
WORLD'S MOST INTOLERENT RELIGION!
I have had people try to tell me that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. If so, then where are those who should be speaking out against this type of thing. Try reading the Koran sometime. It is one the must intolerant books I have ever tried to read. I have yet to make it all the way through.
It is historical fact that Islam was was spread by fire and sword. That much is Historical fact. That is not a religion of peace and tolerance. Children in Strict Islamic countries are being taught hate for the West, especially for America and Israel. This is fact, look it up. As for these poor mis-guided ignorant protesters, they probably couldn't locate the Netherlands on a map if it was the only country on the map. They are used and abused and kept totally ignorant of anything that approaches reality.
We as Christians are expected to put up with persecution, vilification, vile intolerant attacks. We are expected to sit by silently while God and the Bible are mocked daily by the mass media and our own Hollywood. And the things that come out of the Islamic press and websites is inconceivable. It is just mind blowing and we are expected, as a nation, to just sit back and take it. LIKE HELL!!!!
STAND UP AND HOLLER.
Protests, Calls for Boycott As Muslims React to Critical Film
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
April 07, 2008
(CNSNews.com) - An online documentary film critical of Islam continued to shake the Muslim world over the weekend, sparking street protests, attempted censorship, and calls for retaliatory boycotts.
As tens of thousands of chanting Pakistanis gathered in Karachi Sunday to protest Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders' film linking the Koran with terrorism and extremism, the speaker of Iran's conservative-dominated parliament urged Muslims to sever economic ties with countries that blaspheme Islam, saying Western nations would quickly repent once they saw their economies endangered.
Iran's Fars news agency reported that an Iranian non-governmental organization is preparing a response to Wilders' film in the shape of a documentary that will include clips of "crimes committed by extremist Christians" inspired by biblical passages.
In Indonesia, an association overseeing Internet service providers confirmed it was beginning to block access to some of the many Web sites where the film, entitled "Fitna," can be accessed, several days after the government asked the video-sharing site YouTube to remove it.
And in Saudi Arabia, the head of a bloc of 56 Islamic states stepped up calls for governments to enact and enforce laws criminalizing the abuse of free speech to attack religions.
Speaking in Jeddah, Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said it was high time that the international community agreed that actions like Wilders' film and the publication of newspaper cartoons lampooning Islam's prophet posed a grave threat to global peace and security.
Unless the perpetrators of such acts of "intolerance and racism" were made to face justice under national or international laws, they would be free to defy the will of the international community and undo progress in improving relations between religions, he said in a statement.
A range of governments and international organizations have denounced the short film, which went online late last month.
The film, and the reappearance in Danish newspapers earlier this year of cartoons depicting Mohammed, have fueled campaigns in the Islamic world against what many are calling "Islamophobia."
At the United Nations, OIC nations and some non-Muslim allies are working on highlighting the "defamation" of Islam while calling for restrictions on free speech when it comes to criticizing religion.
They also are pressing to have Islamophobia recognized as a contemporary form of racism, an issue that is expected to feature prominently at a global racism conference the U.N. is planning in the first half of next year.
The OIC, which has set up a special body to monitor Islamophobia, defines the phenomenon as an irrational fear or dislike of Islam, incorporating "racial hatred, intolerance, prejudice, discrimination and stereotyping," and says it has "assumed alarming proportions" in recent years.
As far as Muslims are concerned, said the OIC in a recent report, the cause of this is a "misconception and incorrect interpretation of Islam" and its values.
Wilders' film shows images of major terror attacks perpetrated by Muslims during recent years and footage of radical Islamists inciting violence, interspersed with translations of selected verses from the Koran.
Make media inquiries or request an interview about this article.
Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-Brief.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Copyright 1998-2006 Cybercast News Service
It is historical fact that Islam was was spread by fire and sword. That much is Historical fact. That is not a religion of peace and tolerance. Children in Strict Islamic countries are being taught hate for the West, especially for America and Israel. This is fact, look it up. As for these poor mis-guided ignorant protesters, they probably couldn't locate the Netherlands on a map if it was the only country on the map. They are used and abused and kept totally ignorant of anything that approaches reality.
We as Christians are expected to put up with persecution, vilification, vile intolerant attacks. We are expected to sit by silently while God and the Bible are mocked daily by the mass media and our own Hollywood. And the things that come out of the Islamic press and websites is inconceivable. It is just mind blowing and we are expected, as a nation, to just sit back and take it. LIKE HELL!!!!
STAND UP AND HOLLER.
Protests, Calls for Boycott As Muslims React to Critical Film
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
April 07, 2008
(CNSNews.com) - An online documentary film critical of Islam continued to shake the Muslim world over the weekend, sparking street protests, attempted censorship, and calls for retaliatory boycotts.
As tens of thousands of chanting Pakistanis gathered in Karachi Sunday to protest Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders' film linking the Koran with terrorism and extremism, the speaker of Iran's conservative-dominated parliament urged Muslims to sever economic ties with countries that blaspheme Islam, saying Western nations would quickly repent once they saw their economies endangered.
Iran's Fars news agency reported that an Iranian non-governmental organization is preparing a response to Wilders' film in the shape of a documentary that will include clips of "crimes committed by extremist Christians" inspired by biblical passages.
In Indonesia, an association overseeing Internet service providers confirmed it was beginning to block access to some of the many Web sites where the film, entitled "Fitna," can be accessed, several days after the government asked the video-sharing site YouTube to remove it.
And in Saudi Arabia, the head of a bloc of 56 Islamic states stepped up calls for governments to enact and enforce laws criminalizing the abuse of free speech to attack religions.
Speaking in Jeddah, Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said it was high time that the international community agreed that actions like Wilders' film and the publication of newspaper cartoons lampooning Islam's prophet posed a grave threat to global peace and security.
Unless the perpetrators of such acts of "intolerance and racism" were made to face justice under national or international laws, they would be free to defy the will of the international community and undo progress in improving relations between religions, he said in a statement.
A range of governments and international organizations have denounced the short film, which went online late last month.
The film, and the reappearance in Danish newspapers earlier this year of cartoons depicting Mohammed, have fueled campaigns in the Islamic world against what many are calling "Islamophobia."
At the United Nations, OIC nations and some non-Muslim allies are working on highlighting the "defamation" of Islam while calling for restrictions on free speech when it comes to criticizing religion.
They also are pressing to have Islamophobia recognized as a contemporary form of racism, an issue that is expected to feature prominently at a global racism conference the U.N. is planning in the first half of next year.
The OIC, which has set up a special body to monitor Islamophobia, defines the phenomenon as an irrational fear or dislike of Islam, incorporating "racial hatred, intolerance, prejudice, discrimination and stereotyping," and says it has "assumed alarming proportions" in recent years.
As far as Muslims are concerned, said the OIC in a recent report, the cause of this is a "misconception and incorrect interpretation of Islam" and its values.
Wilders' film shows images of major terror attacks perpetrated by Muslims during recent years and footage of radical Islamists inciting violence, interspersed with translations of selected verses from the Koran.
Make media inquiries or request an interview about this article.
Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-Brief.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Copyright 1998-2006 Cybercast News Service
Print all
Goldwater Institute: Breaking the Link Between Poverty and Low Achievement
Inbox X
Now isn't this a radical concept, a conservative Republican coming up with a good, sound, workable idea. Just too too radical
The Goldwater Institute Daily
April 7, 2008
Breaking the Link Between Poverty and Low Achievement
Why Jeb Bush should be on Mount Rushmore
by Matthew Ladner, Ph.D.
Imagine if we carved a Mount Rushmore for successful progressive governors. Since the root word of "progressive" is "progress," I nominate former Florida governor Jeb Bush to make the cut.
Mount RushmoreProgressives are concerned with the welfare of the poor. But a better definition, one might argue, would be someone who actually makes progress toward solving the problems of the poor. Like Jeb Bush.
The Florida governor is a right-winger, to be sure, but he sure looks progressive. A look at the graph below shows the progress Florida has made on breaking the link between poverty and low educational achievement.
Figure 1 compares progress on the National Assessment of Educational Progress 4th Grade (NEAP) Reading exam for low-income students (Free or Reduced Lunch Eligible) in Florida, compared to all students in Arizona, with scores on the vertical axis and time on the horizontal.
Testing Data
To qualify for the lunch program, a family of four must have an income of no more than $26,845. The median family income for the Arizona families whose student scores are shown here was $55,709. The chart makes it clear that Florida is breaking the link between poverty and achievement, in that its disadvantaged students are outscoring the average Arizonan. A similar result is evident in math, but the graph is not included here.
I have said in the past that there's a difference between a condition and a problem. A condition is something we've given up on and have grown to accept. A problem is something we aim to solve. A condition says that the poor are always with us. A progressive problem solver like Jeb Bush is equipping the poor to lead productive and rewarding lives.
Ironically, time is running out on our own Governor Napolitano to leave an education legacy not dominated by flat achievement scores and a mountain of debt. Not every governor can be Jeb Bush. But, by pursuing reforms that work, the Governor still has time to put the "progress" back into "progressive."
Dr. Matthew Ladner is vice president of research at the Goldwater Institute.
Learn More
Goldwater Institute: I'll Have What Florida's Having
TC Palm: Florida trailblazing success in K-12 reform
Arizona Republic: Noble legacy in education is on table for Napolitano
Contact
Matt Ladner
Goldwater Institute
mladner@goldwaterinstitute.org
Goldwater logo
Forward email
Safe Unsubscribe
This email was sent to supergramps.duane@gmail.com, by pgibbons@goldwaterinstitute.org
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.
Goldwater Institute | 500 E. Coronado Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85004
Phone (602) 462-5000 | Fax (602) 256-7045 | Email info@goldwaterinstitute.org
Reply
Forward
Sunday, April 6, 2008
WHO GIVES A RAT'S PETUNIAs
Can anyone explain to me why I, or anyone else in this country, should give a rat's petunias when it come to immigration laws (or anything else regarding what happens within our borders).
South Texas Migrant Detention: 'An Extreme Depressive State'
Posted by editor on Sunday, April 06 @ 10:38:38 MDT
Civil Rights in Texas--General
By Greg Moses
In a recent landmark report, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants Jorge Bustamante said that the "overuse of immigration detention in the United States violates the spirit of international laws and conventions and, in many cases, also violates the actual letter of those instruments." South Texas immigration attorney Jodi Goodwin agrees.
"I do not see that the letter nor the spirit of international law is given any importance in US Immigration law," confirms Goodwin. "In fact, international law does not really come into play in the legal arena at all." Considering Goodwin’s long experience with migrant clients, we asked her to respond to other issues raised by the Bustamante report:
Texas Civil Rights Review: Bustamante said immigration enforcement is being gradually shifted toward state and local agencies. At last count, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reports that 41 state and local agencies have signed up as "287(g) partners" to assist with immigration enforcement, helping to identify as many as 45,000 individuals for "possible deportation." The Associated Press reports that the number of cooperating agencies could soon reach as many as100. What effects of this activity can be seen at the detention centers in South Texas?
Goodwin: The increase in the use of local law enforcement for immigration law is seen at the detention centers all the time. Many times people are detained by ICE only after a traffic stop for a minor violation, like a headlight being out or something, and then the local law enforcement officers inquire into the immigration status of individuals. I have seen really sympathetic cases where local law enforcement initiated the arrest and then the people are whisked 2,000 miles away from their home, family, community, etc. to be detained in South Texas.
TCRR: When it comes to immigration law, what is the difference between a criminal violation and a civil violation?
Goodwin: The criminal violations of the immigration law are prosecuted by the United States Attorney in Federal Courts. These criminal violations can be subject to jail and or prison sentences. Civil violations of the immigration laws are processed by the ICE Office of Chief Counsel. These violations can result in deportation if the person does not have any relief from removal.
TCRR: According to the Bustamante report, in 2006 the USA began to intensify the use of mandatory detentions and deportations that were put into law in 1996. What effects have you seen of this recent crackdown?
Goodwin: The biggest effect of the enforcement crackdown that I have seen is the enormous growth in the population of detained individuals in the South Texas area. The San Antonio Field Office of ICE is home to more detention bedspace than any other Field Office in the US. Beyond that, there is a marked lack of lawyers and pro bono assistance for all of these individuals that are detained for the most part in very rural, remote, areas of South Texas.
TCRR: Bustamante says that he "heard accounts from victims that ICE officials entered their homes without a warrant, denied them access to lawyers or a phone to call family members, and coerced them to sign 'voluntary departure' agreements." How does this compare with accounts that you have heard from your clients?
Goodwin: Bustamante's account of ICE actions comports completely with many stories that I have heard from my clients. In fact, I have heard even more egregious stories than the example Mr. Bustamante sets forth.
TCRR: One of your clients? Would you be able to share a story like that?
Goodwin: Sure, I have heard the ugly details of many such arrests. Let me take one as an example: I had a client who was arrested by ICE at her home at around 5:00 am. Agents knocked on the door loudly yelling, "Police, Federal Officers." Her husband answered the door half asleep and as soon as he opened the door the agents forced their way into the home and knocked her husband down. Of course, the agents start yelling at him and start going through the house to look for people.
My client was in her bed as was her child. She was forced up and handcuffed while in her night clothes. The child awoke and saw all of this happen and as expected of a child started to cry. Instead of showing any compassion at all the agents start yelling at the child to shut up, then yelling at the parents to make their child shut up. They had to beg the agents to let her put on clothes before they took her away.
After being arrested and before physically making it in transport to the detention center, my client was "asked" to sign a voluntary removal no less than 4 times. Fortunately for her, she was insistent with the agents that she would not sign their papers and they would just have to put her in jail because she wanted to see an immigration judge.
My client was not a criminal. She had no criminal history at all. She was married to a United States citizen and had applied for her "papers" through him. What was her immigration violation that would warrant a pre-dawn home invasion? She overstayed her visitor visa.
TCRR: Rapporteur Bustamante recommends that, "Immigration detainees in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security and placed in removal proceedings, should have the right to appointed counsel." It seems astonishing to me that detained persons would not have a right to counsel, but maybe you can help us to understand how the lack of right to an attorney is affecting people in detention today?
Goodwin: The lack of the right to appointed counsel is one that has plagued me for decades. The Supreme Court has characterized the deportation process as non-punitive. Therefore, given that it is a civil proceeding in nature, the Constitutional guarantees to counsel do not apply. The lack of access to legal counsel is a huge constraint on South Texas detainees. Many are confused and do not know what they are being charged with. Many do not understand the process and procedures of the court system. Many do not know or have access to information that could prove they have a defense or are eligible for some form of relief from being removed.
TCRR: Bustamante also seems to be concerned that Government pressure for deportation is conflicting with basic human rights to private life and family. He says that laws in the USA put too much weight on the Government's side. He recommends that USA laws should be changed to "ensure that all non-citizens have access to a hearing before an impartial adjudicator, who will weigh the non-citizen's interest in remaining in the United States (including their rights to found a family and to a private life) against the Government's interest in deporting him or her." What are the kinds of human issues that don't get heard under the current system?
Goodwin: Most human issues are not heard at all in immigration proceedings. It is extremely difficult for a person to qualify for any type of relief from being removed. And then, even if one does qualify, the courts have to be convinced in their discretion to grant you some type of relief. This is the hardest aspect to make my clients understand: even though I care about the human issues involved in their cases, the courts and the Immigration Service do not. Our laws are structured in a way that any interest in human issues is left out of the equation.
TCRR: In a related recommendation, Butamante says that ICE should, "ensure that the facilities where non-citizens in removal proceedings are held are located within easy reach of the detainees' counsel or near urban areas where the detainee will have access to legal service providers and pro bono counsel." In your experience, is it ever a hardship to represent clients simply because of the location of the detention centers?
Goodwin: It is ALWAYS a hardship to represent detainees in remote areas. I live in South Texas and practice here, but most of my clients are from thousands of miles away. That means their family and support network are thousands of miles away. Aside from the logistical difficulty of getting documents and preparing cases, the worst part is the extreme depressive state my clients develop. For many I am the only person that ever visits them, and they would benefit greatly from the support and care of their families being close by. The other hardship is that there are a very limited number of lawyers who practice immigration law in this area. There is only one pro bono agency. The pool of available competent lawyers is extremely thin.
TCRR: Bustamante is calling for some fairly serious reforms in the structure of immigration judges. He says immigration judges should no longer work under the Department of Justice; rather, they should be appointed to a truly independent judicial system. What kind of difference would this make to the practice of immigration law?
Goodwin: It would change in the sense that the Immigration Judges would not be beholden politically to the Attorney General. They would be able to make decisions based in law and justice as opposed to politics and fear. They would be able to pass judgment on the government as well as the aliens. As it stands the process, even through the administrative appeals process, is highly weighted toward the government.
TCRR: Finally, Bustamante says that migrant detention practices should provide more alternatives, especially for children, but also for women who are suffering from prior traumas. How appropriate are the conditions of current detention for traumatized migrant women?
Goodwin: Conditions for women are of particular concern because of the specialized medical care needs. I have seen that these medical needs are not met routinely. I have also seen that women, who have been traumatized by events prior to their detention, are further traumatized by the further detention. The lack of mental health care also plays into the conditions for women.
TCRR: Thank you Jodi Goodwin for helping us to understand the Bustamante report in the context of South Texas.
South Texas Migrant Detention: 'An Extreme Depressive State'
Posted by editor on Sunday, April 06 @ 10:38:38 MDT
Civil Rights in Texas--General
By Greg Moses
In a recent landmark report, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants Jorge Bustamante said that the "overuse of immigration detention in the United States violates the spirit of international laws and conventions and, in many cases, also violates the actual letter of those instruments." South Texas immigration attorney Jodi Goodwin agrees.
"I do not see that the letter nor the spirit of international law is given any importance in US Immigration law," confirms Goodwin. "In fact, international law does not really come into play in the legal arena at all." Considering Goodwin’s long experience with migrant clients, we asked her to respond to other issues raised by the Bustamante report:
Texas Civil Rights Review: Bustamante said immigration enforcement is being gradually shifted toward state and local agencies. At last count, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reports that 41 state and local agencies have signed up as "287(g) partners" to assist with immigration enforcement, helping to identify as many as 45,000 individuals for "possible deportation." The Associated Press reports that the number of cooperating agencies could soon reach as many as100. What effects of this activity can be seen at the detention centers in South Texas?
Goodwin: The increase in the use of local law enforcement for immigration law is seen at the detention centers all the time. Many times people are detained by ICE only after a traffic stop for a minor violation, like a headlight being out or something, and then the local law enforcement officers inquire into the immigration status of individuals. I have seen really sympathetic cases where local law enforcement initiated the arrest and then the people are whisked 2,000 miles away from their home, family, community, etc. to be detained in South Texas.
TCRR: When it comes to immigration law, what is the difference between a criminal violation and a civil violation?
Goodwin: The criminal violations of the immigration law are prosecuted by the United States Attorney in Federal Courts. These criminal violations can be subject to jail and or prison sentences. Civil violations of the immigration laws are processed by the ICE Office of Chief Counsel. These violations can result in deportation if the person does not have any relief from removal.
TCRR: According to the Bustamante report, in 2006 the USA began to intensify the use of mandatory detentions and deportations that were put into law in 1996. What effects have you seen of this recent crackdown?
Goodwin: The biggest effect of the enforcement crackdown that I have seen is the enormous growth in the population of detained individuals in the South Texas area. The San Antonio Field Office of ICE is home to more detention bedspace than any other Field Office in the US. Beyond that, there is a marked lack of lawyers and pro bono assistance for all of these individuals that are detained for the most part in very rural, remote, areas of South Texas.
TCRR: Bustamante says that he "heard accounts from victims that ICE officials entered their homes without a warrant, denied them access to lawyers or a phone to call family members, and coerced them to sign 'voluntary departure' agreements." How does this compare with accounts that you have heard from your clients?
Goodwin: Bustamante's account of ICE actions comports completely with many stories that I have heard from my clients. In fact, I have heard even more egregious stories than the example Mr. Bustamante sets forth.
TCRR: One of your clients? Would you be able to share a story like that?
Goodwin: Sure, I have heard the ugly details of many such arrests. Let me take one as an example: I had a client who was arrested by ICE at her home at around 5:00 am. Agents knocked on the door loudly yelling, "Police, Federal Officers." Her husband answered the door half asleep and as soon as he opened the door the agents forced their way into the home and knocked her husband down. Of course, the agents start yelling at him and start going through the house to look for people.
My client was in her bed as was her child. She was forced up and handcuffed while in her night clothes. The child awoke and saw all of this happen and as expected of a child started to cry. Instead of showing any compassion at all the agents start yelling at the child to shut up, then yelling at the parents to make their child shut up. They had to beg the agents to let her put on clothes before they took her away.
After being arrested and before physically making it in transport to the detention center, my client was "asked" to sign a voluntary removal no less than 4 times. Fortunately for her, she was insistent with the agents that she would not sign their papers and they would just have to put her in jail because she wanted to see an immigration judge.
My client was not a criminal. She had no criminal history at all. She was married to a United States citizen and had applied for her "papers" through him. What was her immigration violation that would warrant a pre-dawn home invasion? She overstayed her visitor visa.
TCRR: Rapporteur Bustamante recommends that, "Immigration detainees in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security and placed in removal proceedings, should have the right to appointed counsel." It seems astonishing to me that detained persons would not have a right to counsel, but maybe you can help us to understand how the lack of right to an attorney is affecting people in detention today?
Goodwin: The lack of the right to appointed counsel is one that has plagued me for decades. The Supreme Court has characterized the deportation process as non-punitive. Therefore, given that it is a civil proceeding in nature, the Constitutional guarantees to counsel do not apply. The lack of access to legal counsel is a huge constraint on South Texas detainees. Many are confused and do not know what they are being charged with. Many do not understand the process and procedures of the court system. Many do not know or have access to information that could prove they have a defense or are eligible for some form of relief from being removed.
TCRR: Bustamante also seems to be concerned that Government pressure for deportation is conflicting with basic human rights to private life and family. He says that laws in the USA put too much weight on the Government's side. He recommends that USA laws should be changed to "ensure that all non-citizens have access to a hearing before an impartial adjudicator, who will weigh the non-citizen's interest in remaining in the United States (including their rights to found a family and to a private life) against the Government's interest in deporting him or her." What are the kinds of human issues that don't get heard under the current system?
Goodwin: Most human issues are not heard at all in immigration proceedings. It is extremely difficult for a person to qualify for any type of relief from being removed. And then, even if one does qualify, the courts have to be convinced in their discretion to grant you some type of relief. This is the hardest aspect to make my clients understand: even though I care about the human issues involved in their cases, the courts and the Immigration Service do not. Our laws are structured in a way that any interest in human issues is left out of the equation.
TCRR: In a related recommendation, Butamante says that ICE should, "ensure that the facilities where non-citizens in removal proceedings are held are located within easy reach of the detainees' counsel or near urban areas where the detainee will have access to legal service providers and pro bono counsel." In your experience, is it ever a hardship to represent clients simply because of the location of the detention centers?
Goodwin: It is ALWAYS a hardship to represent detainees in remote areas. I live in South Texas and practice here, but most of my clients are from thousands of miles away. That means their family and support network are thousands of miles away. Aside from the logistical difficulty of getting documents and preparing cases, the worst part is the extreme depressive state my clients develop. For many I am the only person that ever visits them, and they would benefit greatly from the support and care of their families being close by. The other hardship is that there are a very limited number of lawyers who practice immigration law in this area. There is only one pro bono agency. The pool of available competent lawyers is extremely thin.
TCRR: Bustamante is calling for some fairly serious reforms in the structure of immigration judges. He says immigration judges should no longer work under the Department of Justice; rather, they should be appointed to a truly independent judicial system. What kind of difference would this make to the practice of immigration law?
Goodwin: It would change in the sense that the Immigration Judges would not be beholden politically to the Attorney General. They would be able to make decisions based in law and justice as opposed to politics and fear. They would be able to pass judgment on the government as well as the aliens. As it stands the process, even through the administrative appeals process, is highly weighted toward the government.
TCRR: Finally, Bustamante says that migrant detention practices should provide more alternatives, especially for children, but also for women who are suffering from prior traumas. How appropriate are the conditions of current detention for traumatized migrant women?
Goodwin: Conditions for women are of particular concern because of the specialized medical care needs. I have seen that these medical needs are not met routinely. I have also seen that women, who have been traumatized by events prior to their detention, are further traumatized by the further detention. The lack of mental health care also plays into the conditions for women.
TCRR: Thank you Jodi Goodwin for helping us to understand the Bustamante report in the context of South Texas.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
NEEDS NO COMMENT
Networks Ignore Revealing Obama ‘Baby’ Gaffe
Candidate doesn’t want daughters “punished with a baby.”
By Brian Fitzpatrick
Culture and Media Institute
April 2, 2008
Last Saturday afternoon, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama likened having a baby to being “punished” or contracting a sexually transmitted disease, but you’d never know it by watching network news.
This revealing remark should have been a major story, given Obama’s history as a pro-abortion advocate who, as a state legislator, refused to support a partial birth abortion ban or a law protecting babies who survive abortions.
A Nexis search, however, reveals the statement has been covered only by bloggers, talk radio, cable talk shows and Fox News. CNN broadcast the speech live.
Speaking off the cuff to a Johnstown, Pennsylvania audience, Obama said:
When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include abstinence education and teaching children that sex is not something casual. But it should also include other information about contraception because, look, I’ve got two daughters, nine years old and six years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.
Despite intensive coverage of the fight for the Democratic nomination, and condemnations of the remark from growing numbers of religious and pro-life organizations, we haven’t found a word about Obama’s colossal gaffe on ABC, NBC or CBS’s morning and evening news broadcasts as of the afternoon of April 2.
On Saturday evening, when the story should have been told, ABC preferred to cover Obama “playing nursemaid to a calf” and bowling. NBC discussed Obama’s retail politics in a bar and a wire factory. CBS was preempted by March Madness.
On Monday evening, both NBC and ABC led their newscasts with stories about Obama leading Hillary Clinton in polls and in fundraising. His frontrunner’s status won’t change, of course, if the networks refuse to report his troubling statements during public speeches.
This morning (April 2), CBS’s Early Show ran an interview of Obama by anchor Harry Smith. Rather than asking about the baby gaffe, Smith lobbed a few softballs:
* What is your sense from what your own people tell you about the switching that has taken place already in Pennsylvania in terms of Republicans coming over to support you?
* What do you know now that you didn't know when you announced 14 months ago?
* Are you willing to take her up on it? (Hillary Clinton’s April Fools Day offer of a “bowl-off.”)
Over on ABC, Good Morning America hosts Diane Sawyer and Robin Roberts today ironically found time to chuckle over a video clip of a baby, just learning to talk, saying “Obama.”
Does the candidate consider that little boy a “punishment?”
Brian Fitzpatrick is senior editor at the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center.
Send this page to a friend! (click here)
Candidate doesn’t want daughters “punished with a baby.”
By Brian Fitzpatrick
Culture and Media Institute
April 2, 2008
Last Saturday afternoon, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama likened having a baby to being “punished” or contracting a sexually transmitted disease, but you’d never know it by watching network news.
This revealing remark should have been a major story, given Obama’s history as a pro-abortion advocate who, as a state legislator, refused to support a partial birth abortion ban or a law protecting babies who survive abortions.
A Nexis search, however, reveals the statement has been covered only by bloggers, talk radio, cable talk shows and Fox News. CNN broadcast the speech live.
Speaking off the cuff to a Johnstown, Pennsylvania audience, Obama said:
When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include abstinence education and teaching children that sex is not something casual. But it should also include other information about contraception because, look, I’ve got two daughters, nine years old and six years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.
Despite intensive coverage of the fight for the Democratic nomination, and condemnations of the remark from growing numbers of religious and pro-life organizations, we haven’t found a word about Obama’s colossal gaffe on ABC, NBC or CBS’s morning and evening news broadcasts as of the afternoon of April 2.
On Saturday evening, when the story should have been told, ABC preferred to cover Obama “playing nursemaid to a calf” and bowling. NBC discussed Obama’s retail politics in a bar and a wire factory. CBS was preempted by March Madness.
On Monday evening, both NBC and ABC led their newscasts with stories about Obama leading Hillary Clinton in polls and in fundraising. His frontrunner’s status won’t change, of course, if the networks refuse to report his troubling statements during public speeches.
This morning (April 2), CBS’s Early Show ran an interview of Obama by anchor Harry Smith. Rather than asking about the baby gaffe, Smith lobbed a few softballs:
* What is your sense from what your own people tell you about the switching that has taken place already in Pennsylvania in terms of Republicans coming over to support you?
* What do you know now that you didn't know when you announced 14 months ago?
* Are you willing to take her up on it? (Hillary Clinton’s April Fools Day offer of a “bowl-off.”)
Over on ABC, Good Morning America hosts Diane Sawyer and Robin Roberts today ironically found time to chuckle over a video clip of a baby, just learning to talk, saying “Obama.”
Does the candidate consider that little boy a “punishment?”
Brian Fitzpatrick is senior editor at the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center.
Send this page to a friend! (click here)
Sunday, March 30, 2008
OBAMA SLAMBAMA, AGAIN
1. Obama's Top VP Choices: Jim Webb, Ted Strickland
The two leading candidates for the vice presidential slot if Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination are Jim Webb and Ted Strickland, a Washington source close to Democratic party circles tells Newsmax.
Webb, a first-term senator from Virginia, agrees with Obama regarding the war on terror and Iraq. Like Obama, Webb opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, predicting that it would lead to a protracted guerilla war, and later called the invasion “the greatest strategic blunder in modern history.”
Webb is considered strong on foreign policy and the military, two areas in which Obama lacks experience. A highly decorated Vietnam War combat veteran, Webb served as secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan.
As a former Republican, Webb could help balance the Democratic ticket and demonstrate Obama's desire to "reach out." And he could swing Virginia — a Red state that usually votes for the GOP — into the Democratic camp.
On the downside, a ticket with two U.S. senators might be seen as undesirable. In that case, the Democrats could turn to Strickland, the popular first-term governor of Ohio.
Strickland, who served six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives before running for governor, won the 2006 election by garnering 60 percent of the vote against three opponents.
And a Quinnipiac University poll last year showed he had an approval rating in Ohio of 61 percent and a disapproval rating of just 15 percent.
As governor, Strickland has emphasized education and healthcare reform, two issues important to Obama supporters.
He has also been a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, and appeared in a TV ad in Ohio touting her campaign. But that could prove beneficial to the Obama ticket because it might help bridge the gap between his supporters and the Clinton machine.
Most important, Strickland could prove to be the deciding factor in determining the outcome of the presidential vote in Ohio, a crucial battleground state.
Editor's Note:
The two leading candidates for the vice presidential slot if Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination are Jim Webb and Ted Strickland, a Washington source close to Democratic party circles tells Newsmax.
Webb, a first-term senator from Virginia, agrees with Obama regarding the war on terror and Iraq. Like Obama, Webb opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, predicting that it would lead to a protracted guerilla war, and later called the invasion “the greatest strategic blunder in modern history.”
Webb is considered strong on foreign policy and the military, two areas in which Obama lacks experience. A highly decorated Vietnam War combat veteran, Webb served as secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan.
As a former Republican, Webb could help balance the Democratic ticket and demonstrate Obama's desire to "reach out." And he could swing Virginia — a Red state that usually votes for the GOP — into the Democratic camp.
On the downside, a ticket with two U.S. senators might be seen as undesirable. In that case, the Democrats could turn to Strickland, the popular first-term governor of Ohio.
Strickland, who served six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives before running for governor, won the 2006 election by garnering 60 percent of the vote against three opponents.
And a Quinnipiac University poll last year showed he had an approval rating in Ohio of 61 percent and a disapproval rating of just 15 percent.
As governor, Strickland has emphasized education and healthcare reform, two issues important to Obama supporters.
He has also been a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, and appeared in a TV ad in Ohio touting her campaign. But that could prove beneficial to the Obama ticket because it might help bridge the gap between his supporters and the Clinton machine.
Most important, Strickland could prove to be the deciding factor in determining the outcome of the presidential vote in Ohio, a crucial battleground state.
Editor's Note:
Monday, March 24, 2008
'NUFF SAID?
I add this without further comment....
RSS ARCHIVE
Print Page | Forward Page | E-mail Us
Unconvinced by Obama�s Wright Speech
Monday, March 24, 2008 2:28 PM
By: Edward I. Koch Article Font Size
Barack Obama�s speech last week addressing his 20-year relationship with his radical pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was very well done, yet unconvincing.
Obama sought to explain that relationship and why he could not end this close association, despite the minister's hate-filled rhetoric. He said, �There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Rev. Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?�
Yes, those are the questions that people are asking.
Many of Rev. Wright�s incendiary statements are on videos sold by his church. Minister Louis Farrakhan, a friend of Rev. Wright with whom he traveled to visit Muammar Qadaffi in Libya, also makes his sermons and those of others associated with the Nation of Islam available for sale. Their attacks on the U.S. and Israel often coincide with those of Rev. Wright.
Rev. Wright�s sermons charge that the U.S. government gives African-Americans drugs, created AIDS, and is deliberately infecting blacks with that disease. His sermons claim that the U.S. unjustifiably nuclear bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, and that 9/11 and the deaths of 3,000 Americans were caused by U.S. foreign policy.
He alleges Israeli state terrorism against the Palestinians; calling Israel a �dirty word� and �racist country.� He blames Israel for 9/11 and supports the divestment campaign against it, denouncing �Zionism.� His venomous thoughts are summed up in his most discussed sermon in which he says the U.S. government �wants us to sing God Bless America. No, no, not God Bless America. God damn America. God damn America for killing innocent people.�
Sen. Obama in his speech acknowledged that the rantings of his minister are �inexcusable,� but stated, �I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother � a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.�
Before we discuss his grandmother, let�s examine the impact of Rev. Wright�s statements on the senator�s two daughters. Nothing says it better than a song from the musical �South Pacific,� to wit, �You have to be taught to hate and fear�You�ve got to be carefully taught.� Few dispute that Rev. Wright�s sermons are filled with hate. Why didn�t Obama stand up in the church and denounce his hateful statements or, at the very least, argue privately with his minister? It was horrifying to see on a video now viewed across America the congregation rise from the pews to applaud their minister�s rants.
Now to Obama�s grandmother. There was a time spanning the 70�s to the mid-90s when many blacks and whites in large American cities expressed the same feelings on street crime held by Obama�s grandmother. Indeed, the Rev. Jesse Jackson made similar comments in 1993 at a meeting of his organization, Operation Push, devoted to street crime. According to a Nov. 29, 1993, article in the Chicago Sun Times, he said, ��We must face the No. 1 critical issue of our day. It is youth crime in general and black-on-black crime in particular.� Then Jackson told the audience, �There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved . . . After all we have been through,� he said. �Just to think we can�t walk down our own streets, how humiliating.��
Isn�t that exactly what Obama�s grandmother was referring to? To equate her fears, similar to Jesse Jackson�s, with Wright�s anti-American, anti-white, anti-Jew, and anti-Israel rantings is despicable coming from a grandson. In today�s vernacular, he threw her under the wheels of the bus to keep his presidential campaign rolling. For shame.
What is it that I and others expected Obama to do? A great leader with conscience and courage would have stood up and faced down anyone who engages in such conduct. I expect a president of the United States to have the strength of character to denounce and disown enemies of America � foreign and domestic � and yes, even his friends and confidants when they get seriously out of line.
What if a minister in a church attended primarily by white congregants or a rabbi in a synagogue attended primarily by Jews made comparable statements that were hostile to African-Americans? I have no doubt that the congregants would have immediately stood up and openly denounced the offending cleric.
Others would have criticized that cleric in private. Some would surely have ended their relationships with their congregation. Obama didn�t do any of these things. His recent condemnations of Wright�s hate-filled speech are, in my opinion, a case of too little, too late.
It is also disturbing to me that Obama�s wife, Michelle, during a speech in Wisconsin last month, said, �For the first time in my adult lifetime, I�m really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.�
Strange. This is a woman who has had a good life, with opportunities few whites or blacks have been given. When she entered Princeton and Harvard and later became a partner in a prestigious law firm, didn�t she feel proud to be an American?
When she and the senator bought their new home, was there no feeling of accomplishment and pride in being a U.S. citizen? When her husband was elected to the state legislature and subsequently to the United States Senate, didn�t she feel proud of her country?
Obama was asked if he thought his speech changed any minds. He replied he didn�t think so, and certainly not of those who weren�t already for him. A more important question is, whether his 20-year relationship with Wright has done lasting damage to his candidacy.
We will soon know.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
RSS ARCHIVE
Print Page | Forward Page | E-mail Us
Unconvinced by Obama�s Wright Speech
Monday, March 24, 2008 2:28 PM
By: Edward I. Koch Article Font Size
Barack Obama�s speech last week addressing his 20-year relationship with his radical pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was very well done, yet unconvincing.
Obama sought to explain that relationship and why he could not end this close association, despite the minister's hate-filled rhetoric. He said, �There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Rev. Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?�
Yes, those are the questions that people are asking.
Many of Rev. Wright�s incendiary statements are on videos sold by his church. Minister Louis Farrakhan, a friend of Rev. Wright with whom he traveled to visit Muammar Qadaffi in Libya, also makes his sermons and those of others associated with the Nation of Islam available for sale. Their attacks on the U.S. and Israel often coincide with those of Rev. Wright.
Rev. Wright�s sermons charge that the U.S. government gives African-Americans drugs, created AIDS, and is deliberately infecting blacks with that disease. His sermons claim that the U.S. unjustifiably nuclear bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, and that 9/11 and the deaths of 3,000 Americans were caused by U.S. foreign policy.
He alleges Israeli state terrorism against the Palestinians; calling Israel a �dirty word� and �racist country.� He blames Israel for 9/11 and supports the divestment campaign against it, denouncing �Zionism.� His venomous thoughts are summed up in his most discussed sermon in which he says the U.S. government �wants us to sing God Bless America. No, no, not God Bless America. God damn America. God damn America for killing innocent people.�
Sen. Obama in his speech acknowledged that the rantings of his minister are �inexcusable,� but stated, �I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother � a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.�
Before we discuss his grandmother, let�s examine the impact of Rev. Wright�s statements on the senator�s two daughters. Nothing says it better than a song from the musical �South Pacific,� to wit, �You have to be taught to hate and fear�You�ve got to be carefully taught.� Few dispute that Rev. Wright�s sermons are filled with hate. Why didn�t Obama stand up in the church and denounce his hateful statements or, at the very least, argue privately with his minister? It was horrifying to see on a video now viewed across America the congregation rise from the pews to applaud their minister�s rants.
Now to Obama�s grandmother. There was a time spanning the 70�s to the mid-90s when many blacks and whites in large American cities expressed the same feelings on street crime held by Obama�s grandmother. Indeed, the Rev. Jesse Jackson made similar comments in 1993 at a meeting of his organization, Operation Push, devoted to street crime. According to a Nov. 29, 1993, article in the Chicago Sun Times, he said, ��We must face the No. 1 critical issue of our day. It is youth crime in general and black-on-black crime in particular.� Then Jackson told the audience, �There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved . . . After all we have been through,� he said. �Just to think we can�t walk down our own streets, how humiliating.��
Isn�t that exactly what Obama�s grandmother was referring to? To equate her fears, similar to Jesse Jackson�s, with Wright�s anti-American, anti-white, anti-Jew, and anti-Israel rantings is despicable coming from a grandson. In today�s vernacular, he threw her under the wheels of the bus to keep his presidential campaign rolling. For shame.
What is it that I and others expected Obama to do? A great leader with conscience and courage would have stood up and faced down anyone who engages in such conduct. I expect a president of the United States to have the strength of character to denounce and disown enemies of America � foreign and domestic � and yes, even his friends and confidants when they get seriously out of line.
What if a minister in a church attended primarily by white congregants or a rabbi in a synagogue attended primarily by Jews made comparable statements that were hostile to African-Americans? I have no doubt that the congregants would have immediately stood up and openly denounced the offending cleric.
Others would have criticized that cleric in private. Some would surely have ended their relationships with their congregation. Obama didn�t do any of these things. His recent condemnations of Wright�s hate-filled speech are, in my opinion, a case of too little, too late.
It is also disturbing to me that Obama�s wife, Michelle, during a speech in Wisconsin last month, said, �For the first time in my adult lifetime, I�m really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.�
Strange. This is a woman who has had a good life, with opportunities few whites or blacks have been given. When she entered Princeton and Harvard and later became a partner in a prestigious law firm, didn�t she feel proud to be an American?
When she and the senator bought their new home, was there no feeling of accomplishment and pride in being a U.S. citizen? When her husband was elected to the state legislature and subsequently to the United States Senate, didn�t she feel proud of her country?
Obama was asked if he thought his speech changed any minds. He replied he didn�t think so, and certainly not of those who weren�t already for him. A more important question is, whether his 20-year relationship with Wright has done lasting damage to his candidacy.
We will soon know.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Sauce for the goose???
I am tempted an old and probably politically expression, something about the pot calling the kettle something. I won't, but I am tempted. I read things like this and I am just amazed at how afraid the liberals are over the thought that John McCain might be elected President. McCain is far from perfect as a candidate but he beats the hell out of the other two combined.
This is a printer friendly version of an article from www.washingtontimes.com
Article published Mar 23, 2008
Outsiders shower Obama with funds
March 23, 2008
By Jim McElhatton - Sen. Barack Obama, whose campaign has sharply criticized the role of outside political groups in the presidential race, has benefited more than any other candidate from millions of dollars in independent political expenditures, records show.
The increasing support for Mr. Obama has given him a boost from the same sort of political activity his campaign has railed against, especially when millions of dollars in union and other special-interest money backed his opponents.
The political arm of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and other independent groups have spent more than $7.1 million directly supporting the Illinois Democrat's bid for the presidential nomination, campaign records show. By contrast, similar outside groups have spent about $5.1 million backing Sen. Hillary Clinton, New York Democrat.
Political specialists point out that Mr. Obama doesn't have any control over those expenditures because outside groups raise and spend money independent of the presidential campaigns.
“It's going to happen, regardless of what the candidates say,” said James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University.
The Obama campaign, which had been vocal in criticizing such expenditures earlier in the race, says it asked groups not to mount independent political efforts on Mr. Obama's behalf.
Citing money from “big interests,” Obama campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in an e-mail to supporters last year, “Outside groups are in the process of pouring more than $3.2 million into Iowa to support Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
“Barack has repeatedly spoken out against the work of these outside groups, and this campaign does not accept any money from Washington lobbyists or PACs,” he wrote.
Mr. Plouffe also reportedly told reporters in December that Mr. Obama faced a “blizzard of outside money” from groups supporting Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, who has since dropped out of the race.
In response to questions about the latest SEIU expenditures, the campaign released a letter from Obama campaign attorney Robert Bauer to Andy Stern, president of the 1.9-million-member union. Dated Feb. 26, the letter asks SEIU to devote its “time and energies in full partnership with the official (Obama) campaign, in place of any current or planned independent activities.”
The message went unheeded.
Since last week, the SEIU reported spending more than a quarter-million dollars supporting Mr. Obama through door-to-door canvassing and phone banks in Pennsylvania, which holds its primary April 22. Overall, the group has reported $4.9 million in independent expenditures for Mr. Obama, mostly during the past month.
A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton criticized the Obama response regarding outside money being spent on his behalf.
“The reality is, our political system allows for many different types of groups to play a role in the process, including third-party entities,” said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer. “It only becomes a problem when one candidate criticizes another candidate, but then benefits from the very same types of expenditures, as is the case with Senator Obama, or if there is illegal coordination.”
Last month, The Washington Times reported that while Mr. Obama refuses donations from federal lobbyists and paints his Democratic presidential rival as a Washington insider for accepting their contributions, took hundreds of thousands of dollars from partners at dozens of firms that lobbied Congress in 2007.
The partners — who often share in a law firm's overall profits — gave at least $214,000 to the Obama campaign from October through December, according to a review of Federal Election Commission records and lobbying-disclosure reports with the Senate.
The SEIU accounts for more than half of the outside political money directly supporting Mr. Obama, while a new California political group called Powerpac.org has spent more than $300,000, according to a review of late independent expenditure reports filed with the Federal Election Commission since last year.
The liberal group MoveOn.org spent more than $60,000 supporting Mr. Obama.
“The work that we do ... is funded by janitors, nurses and school bus drivers, who are giving a few dollars a paycheck,” SEIU spokeswoman Stephanie Mueller said. “I don't think that our members have ever thought Barack Obama wasn't grateful for the support they've been giving him.”
Three groups, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the pro-choice Emily's List, have spent more than $1 million each in support of Mrs. Clinton.
The independent political expenditures are just a fraction of what groups such as SEIU and AFSCME are spending in the campaign, said Anthony Corrado, a campaign-finance specialist and professor at Colby College in Waterville, Maine.
“They're spending millions more in terms of communicating with their own members,” he said. “I think the candidates are more wary of this type of activity than is generally thought. It can produce a mixed message. Given the fact the candidates have so much money to spend, the candidates would probably rather be in control of their own message.”
So far, no groups have reported any expenditures on behalf of Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who has clinched the Republican nomination, through Mr. Corrado said that will likely change during the general election.
This is a printer friendly version of an article from www.washingtontimes.com
Article published Mar 23, 2008
Outsiders shower Obama with funds
March 23, 2008
By Jim McElhatton - Sen. Barack Obama, whose campaign has sharply criticized the role of outside political groups in the presidential race, has benefited more than any other candidate from millions of dollars in independent political expenditures, records show.
The increasing support for Mr. Obama has given him a boost from the same sort of political activity his campaign has railed against, especially when millions of dollars in union and other special-interest money backed his opponents.
The political arm of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and other independent groups have spent more than $7.1 million directly supporting the Illinois Democrat's bid for the presidential nomination, campaign records show. By contrast, similar outside groups have spent about $5.1 million backing Sen. Hillary Clinton, New York Democrat.
Political specialists point out that Mr. Obama doesn't have any control over those expenditures because outside groups raise and spend money independent of the presidential campaigns.
“It's going to happen, regardless of what the candidates say,” said James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University.
The Obama campaign, which had been vocal in criticizing such expenditures earlier in the race, says it asked groups not to mount independent political efforts on Mr. Obama's behalf.
Citing money from “big interests,” Obama campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in an e-mail to supporters last year, “Outside groups are in the process of pouring more than $3.2 million into Iowa to support Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
“Barack has repeatedly spoken out against the work of these outside groups, and this campaign does not accept any money from Washington lobbyists or PACs,” he wrote.
Mr. Plouffe also reportedly told reporters in December that Mr. Obama faced a “blizzard of outside money” from groups supporting Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, who has since dropped out of the race.
In response to questions about the latest SEIU expenditures, the campaign released a letter from Obama campaign attorney Robert Bauer to Andy Stern, president of the 1.9-million-member union. Dated Feb. 26, the letter asks SEIU to devote its “time and energies in full partnership with the official (Obama) campaign, in place of any current or planned independent activities.”
The message went unheeded.
Since last week, the SEIU reported spending more than a quarter-million dollars supporting Mr. Obama through door-to-door canvassing and phone banks in Pennsylvania, which holds its primary April 22. Overall, the group has reported $4.9 million in independent expenditures for Mr. Obama, mostly during the past month.
A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton criticized the Obama response regarding outside money being spent on his behalf.
“The reality is, our political system allows for many different types of groups to play a role in the process, including third-party entities,” said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer. “It only becomes a problem when one candidate criticizes another candidate, but then benefits from the very same types of expenditures, as is the case with Senator Obama, or if there is illegal coordination.”
Last month, The Washington Times reported that while Mr. Obama refuses donations from federal lobbyists and paints his Democratic presidential rival as a Washington insider for accepting their contributions, took hundreds of thousands of dollars from partners at dozens of firms that lobbied Congress in 2007.
The partners — who often share in a law firm's overall profits — gave at least $214,000 to the Obama campaign from October through December, according to a review of Federal Election Commission records and lobbying-disclosure reports with the Senate.
The SEIU accounts for more than half of the outside political money directly supporting Mr. Obama, while a new California political group called Powerpac.org has spent more than $300,000, according to a review of late independent expenditure reports filed with the Federal Election Commission since last year.
The liberal group MoveOn.org spent more than $60,000 supporting Mr. Obama.
“The work that we do ... is funded by janitors, nurses and school bus drivers, who are giving a few dollars a paycheck,” SEIU spokeswoman Stephanie Mueller said. “I don't think that our members have ever thought Barack Obama wasn't grateful for the support they've been giving him.”
Three groups, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the pro-choice Emily's List, have spent more than $1 million each in support of Mrs. Clinton.
The independent political expenditures are just a fraction of what groups such as SEIU and AFSCME are spending in the campaign, said Anthony Corrado, a campaign-finance specialist and professor at Colby College in Waterville, Maine.
“They're spending millions more in terms of communicating with their own members,” he said. “I think the candidates are more wary of this type of activity than is generally thought. It can produce a mixed message. Given the fact the candidates have so much money to spend, the candidates would probably rather be in control of their own message.”
So far, no groups have reported any expenditures on behalf of Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who has clinched the Republican nomination, through Mr. Corrado said that will likely change during the general election.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN
The following was lifted from an for Human Events magazine. I hope that they don't mind.
Keep in mind, all of these revelations appeared in HUMAN EVENTS, but were virtually ignored by the regular media...
* True or False: "The GOP is the party of Big Business." (Answer: false. Fortune 500 now give more money to the Left by a factor of 14.5 to 1)
* Exposed: the Hollywood hypocrites who drive most of the way in from Malibu in Lincoln Navigators … but arrive on camera at the Academy Awards in hybrid, eco-friendly Priuses
* 45% of British Muslims believe the U.S. and Israel planned the 9/11 attacks. (This clearly does not square with the media view of Islam as a gentle, rational faith.)
* Liberals claim that "political correctness" on campus a figment of conservatives' imagination - but a recent national survey found that Democratic professors outnumber Republican professors 3 to 1 in economics, 28 to 1 in sociology, and 30 to 1 in anthropology
* American companies recently did $1 billion worth of direct business with Cuba. (This story gets no play because the press want you believe a "cruel U.S. business embargo" is the cause of Cuban poverty.)
* The segment of the American public most devoted to unlimited abortion rights is young women, right? Wrong. Surveys reveal that young single men aged 18 to 34 favor unlimited abortion more than any other segment
* "Sharia Chic" - how the European fashion industry is featuring outfits inspired by Islamic dress, including clothing worn by jihadists, to rich fashion-conscious Westerners
* High energy prices are NOT all bad. (For the first time in 15 years, the number of new U.S. oil wells drilled tops the 1,000 mark -- and exploration is up 35% over last year.)
* The Kyoto Treaty can't alter climate -- period. (That's what treaty backers admit. Nevertheless, the global press bends over backwards to cover this up.)
* The North Korean missile launch was helpful -- for Red China. (Chinese military leaders got a detailed look at U.S. missile defenses -- sea, air and land-based detection systems and frequencies used.)
* Since 9/11, Islamic jihadists have perpetrated not 500, not 2,500, but more than 5,000 terror attacks. (Liberals hush-up this number, claiming the truth would provoke "reprisals" by "violent" Americans against "peaceful" Muslims.)
Now, does all this make you feel as if the real "endangered species" these days are truth and common sense?
Good! That tells me HUMAN EVENTS will be a welcome breath of fresh air for you. And that you
Keep in mind, all of these revelations appeared in HUMAN EVENTS, but were virtually ignored by the regular media...
* True or False: "The GOP is the party of Big Business." (Answer: false. Fortune 500 now give more money to the Left by a factor of 14.5 to 1)
* Exposed: the Hollywood hypocrites who drive most of the way in from Malibu in Lincoln Navigators … but arrive on camera at the Academy Awards in hybrid, eco-friendly Priuses
* 45% of British Muslims believe the U.S. and Israel planned the 9/11 attacks. (This clearly does not square with the media view of Islam as a gentle, rational faith.)
* Liberals claim that "political correctness" on campus a figment of conservatives' imagination - but a recent national survey found that Democratic professors outnumber Republican professors 3 to 1 in economics, 28 to 1 in sociology, and 30 to 1 in anthropology
* American companies recently did $1 billion worth of direct business with Cuba. (This story gets no play because the press want you believe a "cruel U.S. business embargo" is the cause of Cuban poverty.)
* The segment of the American public most devoted to unlimited abortion rights is young women, right? Wrong. Surveys reveal that young single men aged 18 to 34 favor unlimited abortion more than any other segment
* "Sharia Chic" - how the European fashion industry is featuring outfits inspired by Islamic dress, including clothing worn by jihadists, to rich fashion-conscious Westerners
* High energy prices are NOT all bad. (For the first time in 15 years, the number of new U.S. oil wells drilled tops the 1,000 mark -- and exploration is up 35% over last year.)
* The Kyoto Treaty can't alter climate -- period. (That's what treaty backers admit. Nevertheless, the global press bends over backwards to cover this up.)
* The North Korean missile launch was helpful -- for Red China. (Chinese military leaders got a detailed look at U.S. missile defenses -- sea, air and land-based detection systems and frequencies used.)
* Since 9/11, Islamic jihadists have perpetrated not 500, not 2,500, but more than 5,000 terror attacks. (Liberals hush-up this number, claiming the truth would provoke "reprisals" by "violent" Americans against "peaceful" Muslims.)
Now, does all this make you feel as if the real "endangered species" these days are truth and common sense?
Good! That tells me HUMAN EVENTS will be a welcome breath of fresh air for you. And that you
Friday, March 21, 2008
Your tax dollars at work
When Birds Attack
Episode Number: 2028
Publication Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2008
*
*
* digg this story
* Listen to Audio (MP3)
* PDF Version
Categories: Government Gone Wild!
If you’ve never seen Hitchcock’s The Birds, you’ve probably seen a few chilling out-takes. People running. Birds swooping. People screaming. Glass shattering.
Could the scenario be even scarier? Well, yes: if, say, it were illegal for the victims to defend themselves.
This is not a movie remake. That’s what the beleaguered citizens of Bartow are currently facing. This is a small town outside of Orlando — a quiet community says the Orlando Sentinel. Well, except for the screaming.
Migrating turkey vultures have turned into quite a nuisance there. They rip shingles off roofs. They chew rubber from car windows. First pecking a little. Then a lot.
And the people? Screams. Of frustration.
They’re not allowed to do much about this. They may blow a shrill whistle to try to scare off the vultures, or tactically position stuffed toys that resemble dead vultures. But the beleaguered residents may not kill or even capture the birds.
The birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Apparently we’ve signed an agreement with the birds which makes it a criminal offense for anybody to ruffle their feathers. Too bad such well-meaning edicts don’t also make it illegal for birds to harass innocent villagers.
Once again we see the tyranny of well-meaning politics, un-tethered by even the tiniest amount of thought about the consequences.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
View Full Version
Episode Number: 2028
Publication Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2008
*
*
* digg this story
* Listen to Audio (MP3)
* PDF Version
Categories: Government Gone Wild!
If you’ve never seen Hitchcock’s The Birds, you’ve probably seen a few chilling out-takes. People running. Birds swooping. People screaming. Glass shattering.
Could the scenario be even scarier? Well, yes: if, say, it were illegal for the victims to defend themselves.
This is not a movie remake. That’s what the beleaguered citizens of Bartow are currently facing. This is a small town outside of Orlando — a quiet community says the Orlando Sentinel. Well, except for the screaming.
Migrating turkey vultures have turned into quite a nuisance there. They rip shingles off roofs. They chew rubber from car windows. First pecking a little. Then a lot.
And the people? Screams. Of frustration.
They’re not allowed to do much about this. They may blow a shrill whistle to try to scare off the vultures, or tactically position stuffed toys that resemble dead vultures. But the beleaguered residents may not kill or even capture the birds.
The birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Apparently we’ve signed an agreement with the birds which makes it a criminal offense for anybody to ruffle their feathers. Too bad such well-meaning edicts don’t also make it illegal for birds to harass innocent villagers.
Once again we see the tyranny of well-meaning politics, un-tethered by even the tiniest amount of thought about the consequences.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
View Full Version
Friday, February 22, 2008
ONE NATION UNDER GOD!
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.
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.
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,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)