http://www.drudgereport.com/flashrur.htm
Tue Nov 25 2008 09:04:22 ET
A leading Russian political analyst has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.
Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily IZVESTIA published on Monday: "The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse."
The paper said Panarin's dire predictions for the U.S. economy, initially made at an international conference in Australia 10 years ago at a time when the economy appeared strong, have been given more credence by this year's events.
When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: "It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world's financial regulator."
When asked who would replace the U.S. in regulating world markets, he said: "Two countries could assume this role: China, with its vast reserves, and Russia, which could play the role of a regulator in Eurasia."
Asked why he expected the U.S. to break up into separate parts, he said: "A whole range of reasons. Firstly, the financial problems in the U.S. will get worse. Millions of citizens there have lost their savings. Prices and unemployment are on the rise. General Motors and Ford are on the verge of collapse, and this means that whole cities will be left without work. Governors are already insistently demanding money from the federal center. Dissatisfaction is growing, and at the moment it is only being held back by the elections and the hope that Obama can work miracles. But by spring, it will be clear that there are no miracles."
He also cited the "vulnerable political setup", "lack of unified national laws", and "divisions among the elite, which have become clear in these crisis conditions."
He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.
He even suggested that "we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all." Panarin, 60, is a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and has authored several books on information warfare.
Developing...
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Not All Celebrities Lean Left...Here's Some Notable Celebrity Republicans!!!
http://wcbstv.com/slideshows/Conservative.Celebrities.20.824701.html
- Singer Britney Spears
- Actor Kelsey Grammer
- Actress Angie Harmon
- Action Star Chuck Norris
- Actor Dennis Hopper
- Author Tom Clancy
- Singer/Songwriter Naomi Judd
- Actor Danny Aiello
- Hall of fame quaterback John Elway
- Singer Sara Evans
- Singer Lee Ann Womack
- Founding member of punk rock group "The Ramones", Johnny Ramone
- Actress Shannen Doherty
- NASCAR driver Richard Petty
- Singer Mari Osmond
- Actor Mel Gibson
- NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt Jr.
- Award-winning actor and Comedian Jackie Mason
- Championship baseball pitcher Curt Schilling
- Singer Trace Adkins
- Super model Kathey Ireland
- Actor Jon Voight
- Actor Bruce Willis
- Actor Scott Baio
- Actor Rick Schroder
- Dr. Phil
- Model / Actress Bo Derek
- Singer Nick Lachey
- Actor Stephen Baldwin
- NBA star Karl Malone
- Bodybuilder, Actor, Businessman & Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
- Emmy award winning actress Susan Lucci
- Actress Sarah Michelle Gellar
- Actor Kirk Cameron
- Singer / Songwriter Martina McBride
- Singer Gloria Estefan
- PGA golfer Jack Nicklaus
- Actress Heather Locklear
- Irish Tenor Ronan Tynan
- Singer / Actress Jessica Simpson
- Model Kim Alexis
- Actor / Pro-wrestler Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
- Singer, Author & Actress Cheryl Ladd
- Actor Robert Duvall
- Musician Kid Rock
- Actor Ben Stein
- Actor Dennis Franz
- Actor James Earl Jones
- Actor Tom Selleck
- Actor / Filmmaker Clint Eastwood
- Singer / Songwriter Loretta Lynn
- Academy-award nominated actor James Woods
- Olympic gymnast Mary Lou Retton
- Boxing promoter Don King
- Model & Actress Rachel Hunter
- Actor Dean Cain
- Actor Charlton Heston
- Stand-up comedian Dennis Miller
- Singer Meat Loaf
- Actor Tony Danza
- Former NFL player and coach Mike Ditka
- Game show host Pat Sajak
- Actress Patricia Heaton
- Actress Elisabeth Hasselbeck
- Former world #1 tennis player Chris Evert
- New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick
- Comedian Drew Carey
- Actor, Director, Producer & Screenwriter Vincent Gallo
- Actor Sylvester Stallone
- Actress Dixie Carter
- Actor Adam Sandler
- Former M*A*S*H* star Jamie Farr
- Guitarist Ted Nugent
- Singer & Entertainer Wayne Newton
- Actor & Director Robert Conrad
- Singer & Actress Shirley Jones
- Actor Robert Davi
- Singer LeAnn Rimes
- Actor, Director & Producer Ron Silver
- Actress Janine Turner
- Actor Andy Garcia
- Rapper LL Cool J
- Rock star Alice Cooper
- Former Van Halen member Sammy Hagar
- Rapper 50 Cent
- Actor John Travolta
- Singer Billy Ray Cyrus
- Singer / Actress Miley Cyrus
Sunday, November 16, 2008
On Government Welfare - by: Col. Davy Crockett
One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was brought up to appropriate money for the benefit of the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question to a vote when Colonel David Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, as any man in this House. But we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.
"We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bills asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed and as, no doubt, it would but for that speech, it received but few votes and was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on.
"The weather was very cold and, when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced, appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than in any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road.
"I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and - '
"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'
"This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
"'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not the capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case, you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine.
"'I will say to you what, but for my rudeness I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'
"I said, 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any Constitutional question.'
"'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"
"'Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'
"'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the treasury no more money than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.
"'What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how many thousands are worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000.
"'If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.
"'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.
"'The Congressmen chose to keep their own money which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people of Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is stipulation, and a violation of the Constitution.
"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'
"NOT YOURS TO GIVE"
"I tell you, I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
"'Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard.
"'If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'
"He laughingly replied: 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again on one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'
"'If I don't,' said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and, to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'
"'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'
"'Well, I will be here. But, one thing more before I say goodbye. I must know your name.'
"'My name is Bunce.'
"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.
"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words, but in act. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintances.
"Though I had never met him before, I had heard of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition and been beaten. One thing is certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man. I got to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I have not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted-at least, they all knew me.
"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
"'Fellow citizens, I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to my self as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration.'
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them that I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"'And now, it remains for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"'It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with this convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'
"He came up on the stand and said:
"'Fellow citizens, it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'
"He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some drops rolling down my cheeks. I tell you, the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have made as a member of Congress.
"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.
"There is one thing to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude owed the deceased - a debt which could not be paid by money - and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighted against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
"Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, as any man in this House. But we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.
"We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bills asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed and as, no doubt, it would but for that speech, it received but few votes and was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on.
"The weather was very cold and, when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced, appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than in any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road.
"I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and - '
"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'
"This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
"'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not the capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case, you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine.
"'I will say to you what, but for my rudeness I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'
"I said, 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any Constitutional question.'
"'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"
"'Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'
"'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the treasury no more money than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.
"'What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how many thousands are worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000.
"'If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.
"'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.
"'The Congressmen chose to keep their own money which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people of Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is stipulation, and a violation of the Constitution.
"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'
"NOT YOURS TO GIVE"
"I tell you, I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
"'Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard.
"'If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'
"He laughingly replied: 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again on one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'
"'If I don't,' said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and, to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'
"'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'
"'Well, I will be here. But, one thing more before I say goodbye. I must know your name.'
"'My name is Bunce.'
"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.
"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words, but in act. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintances.
"Though I had never met him before, I had heard of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition and been beaten. One thing is certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man. I got to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I have not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted-at least, they all knew me.
"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
"'Fellow citizens, I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to my self as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration.'
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them that I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"'And now, it remains for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"'It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with this convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'
"He came up on the stand and said:
"'Fellow citizens, it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'
"He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some drops rolling down my cheeks. I tell you, the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have made as a member of Congress.
"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.
"There is one thing to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude owed the deceased - a debt which could not be paid by money - and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighted against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Catholic Bishops Vow to Fight Obama on Abortion
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081112/D94D7AHG0.html
Nov 12, 1:14 AM (ET)
By RACHEL ZOLL
BALTIMORE (AP) - The nation's Roman Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights, saying the church and religious freedom could be under attack in the new presidential administration.
In an impassioned discussion on Catholics in public life, several bishops said they would accept no compromise on abortion policy. Many condemned Catholics who had argued it was morally acceptable to back President-elect Obama because he pledged to reduce abortion rates.
And several prelates promised to call out Catholic policy makers on their failures to follow church teaching. Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, Pa., singled out Vice President-elect Biden, a Catholic, Scranton native who supports abortion rights.
"I cannot have a vice president-elect coming to Scranton to say he's learned his values there when those values are utterly against the teachings of the Catholic Church," Martino said. The Obama-Biden press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Diocese of Kansas City in Kansas said politicians "can't check your principles at the door of the legislature."
Naumann has said repeatedly that Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic Democrat who supports abortion rights, should stop taking Holy Communion until she changes her stance.
"They cannot call themselves Catholic when they violate such a core belief as the dignity of the unborn," Naumann said Tuesday.
The discussion occurred on the same day the bishops approved a new "Blessing of a Child in the Womb." The prayer seeks a healthy pregnancy for the mother and makes a plea that "our civic rulers" perform their duties "while respecting the gift of human life."
Chicago Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is preparing a statement during the bishops' fall meeting that will press Obama on abortion.
The bishops suggested that the final document include the message that "aggressively pro-abortion policies" would be viewed "as an attack on the church."
Along with their theological opposition to the procedure, church leaders say they worry that any expansion in abortion rights could require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or lose federal funding. Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago said the hospitals would close rather than comply.
During the campaign, many prelates had spoken out on abortion more boldly than they had in 2004, telling Catholic politicians and voters that the issue should be the most important consideration in setting policy and deciding which candidate to back.
Yet, according to exit polls, 54 percent of Catholics chose Obama, who is Protestant. The new bishops' statement is meant to drive home the point in a way that cannot be misconstrued.
"We have a very important thing to say. I think we should say it clearly and with a punch," said New York Cardinal Edward Egan.
But some bishops said church leaders should take care with the tone of the statement.
Bishops differ on whether Catholic lawmakers should refrain from receiving Communion if they diverge from central church beliefs. Each bishop sets policy in his own diocese.
"We must act and be perceived as acting as caring pastors and faithful teachers," said Bishop Blase Cupich of Rapid City, S.D.
Dr. Patrick Whelan, a pediatrician and president of Catholic Democrats, said angry statements from church leaders were counterproductive and would only alienate Catholics.
"We're calling on the bishops to move away from the more vicious language," Whelan said. He said the church needs to act "in a more creative, constructive way," to end abortion.
Catholics United was among the groups that argued in direct mail and TV ads during the campaign that taking the "pro-life" position means more than opposing abortion rights.
Chris Korzen, the group's executive director, said, "we honestly want to move past the deadlock" on abortion. He said church leaders were making that task harder.
"What are the bishops going to do now?" Korzen said. "'They have burned a lot of bridges with the Democrats and the new administration."
On the Net:
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: http://www.usccb.org/
Nov 12, 1:14 AM (ET)
By RACHEL ZOLL
BALTIMORE (AP) - The nation's Roman Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights, saying the church and religious freedom could be under attack in the new presidential administration.
In an impassioned discussion on Catholics in public life, several bishops said they would accept no compromise on abortion policy. Many condemned Catholics who had argued it was morally acceptable to back President-elect Obama because he pledged to reduce abortion rates.
And several prelates promised to call out Catholic policy makers on their failures to follow church teaching. Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, Pa., singled out Vice President-elect Biden, a Catholic, Scranton native who supports abortion rights.
"I cannot have a vice president-elect coming to Scranton to say he's learned his values there when those values are utterly against the teachings of the Catholic Church," Martino said. The Obama-Biden press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Diocese of Kansas City in Kansas said politicians "can't check your principles at the door of the legislature."
Naumann has said repeatedly that Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic Democrat who supports abortion rights, should stop taking Holy Communion until she changes her stance.
"They cannot call themselves Catholic when they violate such a core belief as the dignity of the unborn," Naumann said Tuesday.
The discussion occurred on the same day the bishops approved a new "Blessing of a Child in the Womb." The prayer seeks a healthy pregnancy for the mother and makes a plea that "our civic rulers" perform their duties "while respecting the gift of human life."
Chicago Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is preparing a statement during the bishops' fall meeting that will press Obama on abortion.
The bishops suggested that the final document include the message that "aggressively pro-abortion policies" would be viewed "as an attack on the church."
Along with their theological opposition to the procedure, church leaders say they worry that any expansion in abortion rights could require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or lose federal funding. Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago said the hospitals would close rather than comply.
During the campaign, many prelates had spoken out on abortion more boldly than they had in 2004, telling Catholic politicians and voters that the issue should be the most important consideration in setting policy and deciding which candidate to back.
Yet, according to exit polls, 54 percent of Catholics chose Obama, who is Protestant. The new bishops' statement is meant to drive home the point in a way that cannot be misconstrued.
"We have a very important thing to say. I think we should say it clearly and with a punch," said New York Cardinal Edward Egan.
But some bishops said church leaders should take care with the tone of the statement.
Bishops differ on whether Catholic lawmakers should refrain from receiving Communion if they diverge from central church beliefs. Each bishop sets policy in his own diocese.
"We must act and be perceived as acting as caring pastors and faithful teachers," said Bishop Blase Cupich of Rapid City, S.D.
Dr. Patrick Whelan, a pediatrician and president of Catholic Democrats, said angry statements from church leaders were counterproductive and would only alienate Catholics.
"We're calling on the bishops to move away from the more vicious language," Whelan said. He said the church needs to act "in a more creative, constructive way," to end abortion.
Catholics United was among the groups that argued in direct mail and TV ads during the campaign that taking the "pro-life" position means more than opposing abortion rights.
Chris Korzen, the group's executive director, said, "we honestly want to move past the deadlock" on abortion. He said church leaders were making that task harder.
"What are the bishops going to do now?" Korzen said. "'They have burned a lot of bridges with the Democrats and the new administration."
On the Net:
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: http://www.usccb.org/
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
And The Wait Is On...
It's not a question of "what if" any longer. Now it's just a matter of when...And in the words of Joe Biden, "Mark My Words"...
The following is a list of most likely scenarios of what to look forward to during the future Obama presidency:
1.) Iran WILL achieve nuclear capability within the next 4 years. Because of our overextended millitary and Obama's anti-war stance he has sold to the public, the United States will be relegated to the sidelines while the rest of the world waits on our decision.
With Iran's promise to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, Obama will demand Israel hold off on pre-emptive strikes until the Iranian nukes begin falling in Israel and Obama is FORCED to finally get in the game.
The Clinton administration was realistic enough to pass the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 declaring that "it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. Expressessing that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy." http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm and the Bush administration was realistic enough to follow through on this important piece of legislation introduced and passed by the Clinton administration.
You see, even before Saddam himself admitted to seeking nukes, because he, "didn't want to be second to the persians" and was concerned with his legacy and his long standing rivalry with his neighboring enemy Iran. http://asia.news.yahoo.com/041006/ap/d85i8c002.html prominent democratic leaders such as President Clinton, Clinton's Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, Senators Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, Bob Graham, Jay Rockefeller, Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman, and even former Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore, among others from 1998 to 2003 warned of the threat that Saddam posed with his weapons of mass destruction program and the importance of removing him from power. http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm)
Unfortunately Obama doesn't seem to have the foresight of his collegues when it comes to Iran.
2.) Fundamentalist Islamic insurgents will overthrow the current democratically elected governement in Iraq and make it the center for the world's terrorist organizations such as Al Qaida, focusing on training, recruiting and re-organizing their jihad. Not to mention the certain genocide that will follow the overthrow of the current Iraqi government. Once again, Obama's anti-Iraqi war stance along with his pride will relegate the United States to the sidelines while the rest of the world waits on our decision.
3.) America will experience another terrorist attack on the same level or greater than the Septer 11th attacks sometime within the next 6 years. While the Bush administration can be credited with keeping the United States safe and free from future terrorist attacks for all 7 years following the September 11th attacks by keeping Al Qaida on the run and taking out much of its upper-level leaders making it impossible for Al Qaida to re-organize, the Obama administration WILL be credited with doing just the opposite. I could go on to guarantee that after America experiences this future terrorist attack because of Obama policies, the Republicans will go on to dominate another decade of American politics.
4.) Russia will not only invade Georgia but also move on to the Ukraine and other former territories of the Soviet Union. Once again, because of our overextended millitary and Obama's anti-war stance he has sold to the public, the United States will be relegated to the sidelines while the rest of the world waits on our decision.
Putin has already begin his attempt to put the Russian "super-power" back together by nationalizing Russian oil and making his intentions regarding Georgia known to the world. China supports Russia's return to the "iron fist" and America is the only country capable of keeping Russia in check. Putin knows that with American soldiers already stretched thin, now is the time to act...and he will.
5.) Venezuela's Hugo Chavez will begin his goal of realizing the dream of Simon Bolivar by invading Columbia and daring Obama to act. Chavez will be emboldened by our overextended millitary and Obama's anti-war stance. He has tested the Bush administration and felt the burn, count on Chavez seizing this opportunity!
6.) Obama's tax policies will make it impossible for our economy to recover, thus...our millitary will weaken and our national security will follow!! Obama has already promised to cut millitary funding, not to mention that his new tax policy is certain to kill small businesses and jobs while forcing larger companies overseas. His desire to raise import tarriffs and interfere with free trade, will force retaliation from countries such as China and our economy will sour even further. Obama's economic philosophies are sure to weaken our economy and with it, our millitary and national security! MARK MY WORDS!!!
Don't get me wrong...Obama's election victory is likely to temporarily revive the stock market; but for all the wrong reasons. Sure Obama will claim credit but in reality, traders will actually have been dumping stock in an attempt to escape Obama's capital gains tax which will kick in in 2010. Then the stagnant market will return.
7.) Had the Clinton Administration not pressured Fannie Mae to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income people http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260 or had congressional democrats not stopped the Bush administration http://visionsfromthehorizon.blogspot.com/2008/10/timeline-of-economic-crisis.html , http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63 from imposing regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003, or had Obama and democratic senators not accepted money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for their opposition to Bill S.190 (cosponsored by McCain) in 2005 aimed at imposing regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and killed the bill on a party-line vote http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0# or had democratic senators not ignored McCain's 2006 letter to congress demanding regulations be placed on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28973 this current economic crisis could have been avoided.
Of course this economic crisis brought on by the democrats may end up being a blessing in disguise for America. Hopefully their won't be money in the treasury for Obama to seek his proposal for national healthcare. Otherwise I would be predicting the mass exodus of doctors out of America and the looming failure of the United States healthcare system. http://visionsfromthehorizon.blogspot.com/2008/10/hawaii-ending-universal-child-health.html
It is said that "You Reap What You Sow". Americans are about to find out just how true that is!
The following is a list of most likely scenarios of what to look forward to during the future Obama presidency:
1.) Iran WILL achieve nuclear capability within the next 4 years. Because of our overextended millitary and Obama's anti-war stance he has sold to the public, the United States will be relegated to the sidelines while the rest of the world waits on our decision.
With Iran's promise to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, Obama will demand Israel hold off on pre-emptive strikes until the Iranian nukes begin falling in Israel and Obama is FORCED to finally get in the game.
The Clinton administration was realistic enough to pass the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 declaring that "it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. Expressessing that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy." http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm and the Bush administration was realistic enough to follow through on this important piece of legislation introduced and passed by the Clinton administration.
You see, even before Saddam himself admitted to seeking nukes, because he, "didn't want to be second to the persians" and was concerned with his legacy and his long standing rivalry with his neighboring enemy Iran. http://asia.news.yahoo.com/041006/ap/d85i8c002.html prominent democratic leaders such as President Clinton, Clinton's Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, Senators Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, Bob Graham, Jay Rockefeller, Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman, and even former Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore, among others from 1998 to 2003 warned of the threat that Saddam posed with his weapons of mass destruction program and the importance of removing him from power. http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm)
Unfortunately Obama doesn't seem to have the foresight of his collegues when it comes to Iran.
2.) Fundamentalist Islamic insurgents will overthrow the current democratically elected governement in Iraq and make it the center for the world's terrorist organizations such as Al Qaida, focusing on training, recruiting and re-organizing their jihad. Not to mention the certain genocide that will follow the overthrow of the current Iraqi government. Once again, Obama's anti-Iraqi war stance along with his pride will relegate the United States to the sidelines while the rest of the world waits on our decision.
3.) America will experience another terrorist attack on the same level or greater than the Septer 11th attacks sometime within the next 6 years. While the Bush administration can be credited with keeping the United States safe and free from future terrorist attacks for all 7 years following the September 11th attacks by keeping Al Qaida on the run and taking out much of its upper-level leaders making it impossible for Al Qaida to re-organize, the Obama administration WILL be credited with doing just the opposite. I could go on to guarantee that after America experiences this future terrorist attack because of Obama policies, the Republicans will go on to dominate another decade of American politics.
4.) Russia will not only invade Georgia but also move on to the Ukraine and other former territories of the Soviet Union. Once again, because of our overextended millitary and Obama's anti-war stance he has sold to the public, the United States will be relegated to the sidelines while the rest of the world waits on our decision.
Putin has already begin his attempt to put the Russian "super-power" back together by nationalizing Russian oil and making his intentions regarding Georgia known to the world. China supports Russia's return to the "iron fist" and America is the only country capable of keeping Russia in check. Putin knows that with American soldiers already stretched thin, now is the time to act...and he will.
5.) Venezuela's Hugo Chavez will begin his goal of realizing the dream of Simon Bolivar by invading Columbia and daring Obama to act. Chavez will be emboldened by our overextended millitary and Obama's anti-war stance. He has tested the Bush administration and felt the burn, count on Chavez seizing this opportunity!
6.) Obama's tax policies will make it impossible for our economy to recover, thus...our millitary will weaken and our national security will follow!! Obama has already promised to cut millitary funding, not to mention that his new tax policy is certain to kill small businesses and jobs while forcing larger companies overseas. His desire to raise import tarriffs and interfere with free trade, will force retaliation from countries such as China and our economy will sour even further. Obama's economic philosophies are sure to weaken our economy and with it, our millitary and national security! MARK MY WORDS!!!
Don't get me wrong...Obama's election victory is likely to temporarily revive the stock market; but for all the wrong reasons. Sure Obama will claim credit but in reality, traders will actually have been dumping stock in an attempt to escape Obama's capital gains tax which will kick in in 2010. Then the stagnant market will return.
7.) Had the Clinton Administration not pressured Fannie Mae to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income people http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260 or had congressional democrats not stopped the Bush administration http://visionsfromthehorizon.blogspot.com/2008/10/timeline-of-economic-crisis.html , http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63 from imposing regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003, or had Obama and democratic senators not accepted money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for their opposition to Bill S.190 (cosponsored by McCain) in 2005 aimed at imposing regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and killed the bill on a party-line vote http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0# or had democratic senators not ignored McCain's 2006 letter to congress demanding regulations be placed on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28973 this current economic crisis could have been avoided.
Of course this economic crisis brought on by the democrats may end up being a blessing in disguise for America. Hopefully their won't be money in the treasury for Obama to seek his proposal for national healthcare. Otherwise I would be predicting the mass exodus of doctors out of America and the looming failure of the United States healthcare system. http://visionsfromthehorizon.blogspot.com/2008/10/hawaii-ending-universal-child-health.html
It is said that "You Reap What You Sow". Americans are about to find out just how true that is!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)