Will we pull Obama's teeth? Our founding fathers instructed us to chose men who were virtuous in private, How well do we know our candidates. They told us to chose men with high morals, how many have we elected in the past only to find they have more skeletons in their closet than most of us have forks in the silverware drawer. They told us not make these positions one of high pay, only of honor, or scoundrels would seek these positions. They told us elect modest thinking men, for those with large egos would bully and push their will unto the country and their opposition would demean them while wanting to have the same power themselves to pursuit their goals. Have we listened, is not the pay for these jobs way above average, is not the retirement program they have voted for themselves far better than most Americans enjoy? How many elected officials have legal problems, how many have and are facing ethics charges? How many actually have read and studied the constitution to know if they are are passing or proposing constitutional laws? De we really know the heart and mind of the candidates we have to chose from? I submit to you that the number of unqualified representatives, out numbers the the qualified. Why? There are several reasons, one we just don't pay attention, two, as Ben Franklin warned, when the people become corrupt, they only elect corrupt officials. You see, we are not living the standards needed to have a great working republic, therefore we can not or will not elect men and women with the standards to keep this great republic. Our Founding Fathers told us, plain and simple, only a religious, moralistic, virtuous people will be able to retain the principles that are needed for this Republic to survive. Are we going to pull his teeth, or just give him dentures?
The Founding Fathers also told us it was important to teach 3 things in our schools when they passed the Northwest Ordinance, 1,Religion, 2,Morality, and 3, Knowledge. Yes religion, a nondenominational religion that promoted 5 fundamentals. 1, There exists a Creator who made all things and mankind should recognize and worship Him. 2, The Creator has revealed a moral code of behavior for happy living which distinguishes right from wrong. 3, The Creator holds mankind responsible for the way they treat each other. 4, ALL mankind live beyond this life. 5, In the next life mankind are judged for their conduct in this one. This position was set forth in the Northwest Ordinance, which was voted on and passed by the same congress that approved the Constitution, the same year as they approved the Constitution. Washington re-emphasized this ordinance in his Farewell Address, both Franklin and Jefferson had a hand in its writing, and Samuel Adams stated that this group of basic beliefs which constitute "the religion of America is the religion of all mankind. So when Obama says we are not a Christian Nation, you know he does not know anything about the matter. This separation of Church and State only is to keep the state from telling us which Church we worship in.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Not American Tradition, Not America.
I am not a fan of the American Civil Liberties Union, but in this case I believe they took the right side.
American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft (filed April 9, 2004 in the United States) is a lawsuit filed on behalf of an unknown party by the American Civil Liberties Union against the U.S. federal government. The unknown party, an Internet service provider, was subject to National Security Letters (NSLs) from the Federal Bureau of Investigation requiring the release of private information and under a gag order forbidding any public discussion of the issues. In September 2004, Judge Victor Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down the NSL provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. This prompted Congress to amend the law to allow limited judicial review of NSLs, and prompted the government to appeal the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal was dismissed by Doe I v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2006) because Congress amended Section 2709 in the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-177, sec. 116, 120 Stat. 192, 213 (2006).
On the recommendation of the Second Circuit, the district court considered the amended law in 2007, in Doe v. Gonzales. On September 6, 2007, Judge Marrero struck down the NSL provision of the revised Act, ruling that even with limited judicial review granted in the amended law, it was still a violation of separation of powers under the United States Constitution and the First Amendment. This is not yet enforced, pending a possible government appeal.
A heavily redacted page from the original lawsuit. LOOKS LIKE THIS IN THE CASE OF******************WE DO FIND****************ON THIS DAY OF 06/04/2004
***************************and therefore******************* swore to me Judge*********************
You get the idea, everything relevant is blacked out.
Because of the secrecy rules involved, the government would not let the ACLU disclose they had even filed a case for nearly a month, after which they were permitted to release a heavily redacted version of the complaint (like that would do them any good, nothing is readable) According to government secrecy rules (the National Security Letter provision, [Section 2709] of the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, [ECPA]) the ACLU still could not disclose which ISP was served with the request to produce documents.
This prompted the ACLU to challenge the secrecy law itself, and they sued to invalidate the NSL provision of the ECPA. Introduced by U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and enacted in 1986, the bill permitted the FBI to obtain customer records from telephone and Internet companies in terrorism investigations.
The ACLU argued that the NSL violated the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution because
Section 2709 failed to spell out any legal process whereby a telephone or Internet company could try to oppose an NSL subpoena in court and
Section 2709 prohibited the recipient of an NSL subpoena from disclosing that he had received such a request from the FBI, and outweighs the FBI's need for secrecy in counter-terrorism investigations.
The government agreed in principle with the ACLU's claim that the recipient of the subpoena can challenge it in court, and because the matter of specified judicial process remained in question and directly affected other present and future cases, the Court found the NSL section to be in need of review.
[edit]Court finding
The Court subsequently found section 2709 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act unconstitutional. It reasoned that it could not find in the provision an implied right for the person receiving the subpoena to challenge it in court as is constitutionally required.
The finding of unconstitutionality essentially dismisses any claimed presumptive legal need for absolute secrecy in regard to terrorism cases. The USA PATRIOT Act is affected only if the limits on NSLs in terrorism cases also apply to non-terrorism cases such as those authorized by the Act. The government was expected to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, and until the district court ruling is reviewed, the secrecy procedures of the NSL remain in place.
This is part of the Patriot Act that was not explained to us just like the parts of the health care bill and the Finance Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Like so many things, yet our President sees no harm in revealing how many war heads we have and what kind they are, things that our enemies love to know. Like the governors from Minnesota and Texas and about 12 other governors who have recieved NSL's, I too fear where our government is taking us, I hope that those Governors do acknowlege that they have recived these letters and allow the people of their respective states know that the current administration not only will not protect US citizens, it will not allow us to protect ourselves. I take as example the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, this is nothing less than an attempt to take away our Second Amendment Right To Bare Arms. Look at what they did in England, they have taken away their hunting rifles, in the past they took their hand guns. One resident, Tony Martin had been robbed several times in a couple months, he lived rural enough that there were not police close or neighbors so finally he shot one of the robber when they were in his house. He got life in prison for premeditated murder. Just because he planned to protect himself and his property. Now the sentence has been reduced, but he is still in jail and being sued by the burgler. The burgler who was killed was 16 years old and had around 20 breakins on his police record. The other guy was in his early 30's and had 34 convictions on his record. I guess they don't have a three times and your in for life law in England. If you think removing guns from the public make us safer, look at England and Australias crime rates after guns are confidiscated from honest citizens. Violent crime up 30 plus percent. All crime up close to 40%. YoU DO THE MATH. From my cold dead fingers.
American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft (filed April 9, 2004 in the United States) is a lawsuit filed on behalf of an unknown party by the American Civil Liberties Union against the U.S. federal government. The unknown party, an Internet service provider, was subject to National Security Letters (NSLs) from the Federal Bureau of Investigation requiring the release of private information and under a gag order forbidding any public discussion of the issues. In September 2004, Judge Victor Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down the NSL provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. This prompted Congress to amend the law to allow limited judicial review of NSLs, and prompted the government to appeal the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal was dismissed by Doe I v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2006) because Congress amended Section 2709 in the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-177, sec. 116, 120 Stat. 192, 213 (2006).
On the recommendation of the Second Circuit, the district court considered the amended law in 2007, in Doe v. Gonzales. On September 6, 2007, Judge Marrero struck down the NSL provision of the revised Act, ruling that even with limited judicial review granted in the amended law, it was still a violation of separation of powers under the United States Constitution and the First Amendment. This is not yet enforced, pending a possible government appeal.
A heavily redacted page from the original lawsuit. LOOKS LIKE THIS IN THE CASE OF******************WE DO FIND****************ON THIS DAY OF 06/04/2004
***************************and therefore******************* swore to me Judge*********************
You get the idea, everything relevant is blacked out.
Because of the secrecy rules involved, the government would not let the ACLU disclose they had even filed a case for nearly a month, after which they were permitted to release a heavily redacted version of the complaint (like that would do them any good, nothing is readable) According to government secrecy rules (the National Security Letter provision, [Section 2709] of the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, [ECPA]) the ACLU still could not disclose which ISP was served with the request to produce documents.
This prompted the ACLU to challenge the secrecy law itself, and they sued to invalidate the NSL provision of the ECPA. Introduced by U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and enacted in 1986, the bill permitted the FBI to obtain customer records from telephone and Internet companies in terrorism investigations.
The ACLU argued that the NSL violated the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution because
Section 2709 failed to spell out any legal process whereby a telephone or Internet company could try to oppose an NSL subpoena in court and
Section 2709 prohibited the recipient of an NSL subpoena from disclosing that he had received such a request from the FBI, and outweighs the FBI's need for secrecy in counter-terrorism investigations.
The government agreed in principle with the ACLU's claim that the recipient of the subpoena can challenge it in court, and because the matter of specified judicial process remained in question and directly affected other present and future cases, the Court found the NSL section to be in need of review.
[edit]Court finding
The Court subsequently found section 2709 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act unconstitutional. It reasoned that it could not find in the provision an implied right for the person receiving the subpoena to challenge it in court as is constitutionally required.
The finding of unconstitutionality essentially dismisses any claimed presumptive legal need for absolute secrecy in regard to terrorism cases. The USA PATRIOT Act is affected only if the limits on NSLs in terrorism cases also apply to non-terrorism cases such as those authorized by the Act. The government was expected to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, and until the district court ruling is reviewed, the secrecy procedures of the NSL remain in place.
This is part of the Patriot Act that was not explained to us just like the parts of the health care bill and the Finance Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Like so many things, yet our President sees no harm in revealing how many war heads we have and what kind they are, things that our enemies love to know. Like the governors from Minnesota and Texas and about 12 other governors who have recieved NSL's, I too fear where our government is taking us, I hope that those Governors do acknowlege that they have recived these letters and allow the people of their respective states know that the current administration not only will not protect US citizens, it will not allow us to protect ourselves. I take as example the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, this is nothing less than an attempt to take away our Second Amendment Right To Bare Arms. Look at what they did in England, they have taken away their hunting rifles, in the past they took their hand guns. One resident, Tony Martin had been robbed several times in a couple months, he lived rural enough that there were not police close or neighbors so finally he shot one of the robber when they were in his house. He got life in prison for premeditated murder. Just because he planned to protect himself and his property. Now the sentence has been reduced, but he is still in jail and being sued by the burgler. The burgler who was killed was 16 years old and had around 20 breakins on his police record. The other guy was in his early 30's and had 34 convictions on his record. I guess they don't have a three times and your in for life law in England. If you think removing guns from the public make us safer, look at England and Australias crime rates after guns are confidiscated from honest citizens. Violent crime up 30 plus percent. All crime up close to 40%. YoU DO THE MATH. From my cold dead fingers.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Islamic Jihad coming our way soon.
I have added bold lettering and enclosed some of (my) aside statements that I felt were of importance. When you hear people talk about how we have brought this on ourselves by invading Muslim countries or taking advantage of them for their oil, I ask you to point out they have been in jihad since 641 A.D. I don't think Exxon Oil started this back then and I don't believe the U.S.A. was sending diplomatic statesmen there with threats of any kind either. This is an ideology contrived by a murdering pedophile named Muhammad.
A short history of ISLAMIC JIHAD an Ideology not a Religion
and how it is affecting us, the U.S.A. and the WORLD
“Dhimmi” is the Arabic word for “subjugated, non-Muslim individuals or people that accept the restrictive and humiliating subordination to an ascendant Islamic power to avoid enslavement or death,” according to Giselle Littman whose pseudonym is Bat Ye’or, which means “daughter of the Nile” in Hebrew. (Giselle Littman was born in Cairo Egypt, her citizenship was revoked in 1955, became British by marriage and now lives in Switzerland, where she does research and publishes books and articles, mostly about Jews in Egypt and the subjugation of Christians and Jews by Islam.)
Dhimmitude, according to Littman, is the dysfunctional state in which the entire Muslim world known today exists. Furthermore, this dhimmitude is a result of a 1,300 year-old jihad dynamic that has reduced once thriving non-Muslim majority civilizations to a state of dysfunctional dhimmitude. Many civilizations,” she goes on, “have been completely Islamized and have disappeared. Others remain as fossilized relics of the past, unable to evolve.” It is an English derivative of dhimmi.
Littman further explains the meaning of dhimmitude: “I have called ‘dhimmitude’ this condition of ‘subjection with protection’ of non-Muslims in their own countries, obtained by the cession of their land to the Muslim ruler. Subjection, because the infidels submit to the Islamic law which expropriates them, and protection because this same law protects them from jihad and guarantees limited rights under a system of discrimination's that they must accept, or face forced conversion, slavery or death.”
Her understanding of jihad is that it “represents a unique ideology of continuous and universal religious war. People unfamiliar with its history might believe that it remained an abstraction. Quite the contrary; in the course of one century, beginning
in 641 after jihad armies had already conquered Arabia and advanced into the surrounding areas, Islamic conquests expanded over Christian lands from Armenia to Portugal. By the second decade of the eight century, Muhammad bin Qasim’s jihad campaigns had extended the Muslim empire to Sind, on the Indian subcontinent. Other conquests in Byzantine and European lands followed in the next centuries. The newly conquered countries around the Mediterranean had been populated by Christians, with large Jewish minorities. Waves of colonists form Arabia followed the Muslim armies of occupation. These settlers gradually became majorities through the occupants’ policy of colonization, land dispossession, fiscal oppression and, at times, slavery and deportation.” ( As in the example of the three workers at the publishing house who were killed because they printed Christian material in Turkey last week, they also use violence.)
While dhimmis may view jihadic subjugation as oppressive, Muslims think otherwise. They believe in mandatory jihad and because dhimmitude rules are justified by Islam’s sacred texts, Muslims cannot criticize it. “The oppression and persecution of the infidels, including Jews and Christians, are the rightful punishment deserved by the infidels for refusing Islam’s truth.” Muslim conquerors over the centuries have been aided and abetted by Christian leaders who have colluded with them because of inter-Christian dynastic and religious rivalries and personal ambitions.” This pattern, Littman contends, persists today, with France as the leader among European nations that together collude with Arab powers (e.g., encouraging immigration and multiculturalism on the European continent) to obtain need petrol resources. This collusion, which started in 1973 during the devastating Arab oil embargo (which Littman calls “the snare”), is transforming Europe into a dhimmitude continent.
During the process of Islamization of “powerful Christain civilization spread over the Middle East, North Africa, the Iberian Peninsula, Anatolia, and Southeastern Europe,” three important factors emerge as fixed components of jihad policy, says Littman, as follows:
1. “The gradual erosion of resistance within the societies targeted but not yet conquered by jihad, concurring with their growing economic weakness due to the tribute required for the Muslim overlords’ renewal of the truce. During and after their subjugation , their demographic decline followed as a result of warfare, massacres, slavery, abduction of women and children, and deportation, until the situation stabilized. (Forced Political Correctness.)
2. The insecurity caused by the constant mass immigration of foreign populations and the subsequent process of alteration and substitution of one civilization by another, hostile to the indigenous inhabitants. ( Millions of illegals who ignore and break our laws at a much higher rate than our citizens. Illegal students who carve up computers given them in the class room to use, to learn, they just don't care, it is free and their parents don't care they do not pay taxes to replace the damaged equipment.) (The removal of borders, and national pride.)
3. The emergence of powerful collaborationist parties economically and politically linked with Muslim rulers.” (President who attended Muslim school?)
Reply
Reply to all
Forward
A short history of ISLAMIC JIHAD an Ideology not a Religion
and how it is affecting us, the U.S.A. and the WORLD
“Dhimmi” is the Arabic word for “subjugated, non-Muslim individuals or people that accept the restrictive and humiliating subordination to an ascendant Islamic power to avoid enslavement or death,” according to Giselle Littman whose pseudonym is Bat Ye’or, which means “daughter of the Nile” in Hebrew. (Giselle Littman was born in Cairo Egypt, her citizenship was revoked in 1955, became British by marriage and now lives in Switzerland, where she does research and publishes books and articles, mostly about Jews in Egypt and the subjugation of Christians and Jews by Islam.)
Dhimmitude, according to Littman, is the dysfunctional state in which the entire Muslim world known today exists. Furthermore, this dhimmitude is a result of a 1,300 year-old jihad dynamic that has reduced once thriving non-Muslim majority civilizations to a state of dysfunctional dhimmitude. Many civilizations,” she goes on, “have been completely Islamized and have disappeared. Others remain as fossilized relics of the past, unable to evolve.” It is an English derivative of dhimmi.
Littman further explains the meaning of dhimmitude: “I have called ‘dhimmitude’ this condition of ‘subjection with protection’ of non-Muslims in their own countries, obtained by the cession of their land to the Muslim ruler. Subjection, because the infidels submit to the Islamic law which expropriates them, and protection because this same law protects them from jihad and guarantees limited rights under a system of discrimination's that they must accept, or face forced conversion, slavery or death.”
Her understanding of jihad is that it “represents a unique ideology of continuous and universal religious war. People unfamiliar with its history might believe that it remained an abstraction. Quite the contrary; in the course of one century, beginning
in 641 after jihad armies had already conquered Arabia and advanced into the surrounding areas, Islamic conquests expanded over Christian lands from Armenia to Portugal. By the second decade of the eight century, Muhammad bin Qasim’s jihad campaigns had extended the Muslim empire to Sind, on the Indian subcontinent. Other conquests in Byzantine and European lands followed in the next centuries. The newly conquered countries around the Mediterranean had been populated by Christians, with large Jewish minorities. Waves of colonists form Arabia followed the Muslim armies of occupation. These settlers gradually became majorities through the occupants’ policy of colonization, land dispossession, fiscal oppression and, at times, slavery and deportation.” ( As in the example of the three workers at the publishing house who were killed because they printed Christian material in Turkey last week, they also use violence.)
While dhimmis may view jihadic subjugation as oppressive, Muslims think otherwise. They believe in mandatory jihad and because dhimmitude rules are justified by Islam’s sacred texts, Muslims cannot criticize it. “The oppression and persecution of the infidels, including Jews and Christians, are the rightful punishment deserved by the infidels for refusing Islam’s truth.” Muslim conquerors over the centuries have been aided and abetted by Christian leaders who have colluded with them because of inter-Christian dynastic and religious rivalries and personal ambitions.” This pattern, Littman contends, persists today, with France as the leader among European nations that together collude with Arab powers (e.g., encouraging immigration and multiculturalism on the European continent) to obtain need petrol resources. This collusion, which started in 1973 during the devastating Arab oil embargo (which Littman calls “the snare”), is transforming Europe into a dhimmitude continent.
During the process of Islamization of “powerful Christain civilization spread over the Middle East, North Africa, the Iberian Peninsula, Anatolia, and Southeastern Europe,” three important factors emerge as fixed components of jihad policy, says Littman, as follows:
1. “The gradual erosion of resistance within the societies targeted but not yet conquered by jihad, concurring with their growing economic weakness due to the tribute required for the Muslim overlords’ renewal of the truce. During and after their subjugation , their demographic decline followed as a result of warfare, massacres, slavery, abduction of women and children, and deportation, until the situation stabilized. (Forced Political Correctness.)
2. The insecurity caused by the constant mass immigration of foreign populations and the subsequent process of alteration and substitution of one civilization by another, hostile to the indigenous inhabitants. ( Millions of illegals who ignore and break our laws at a much higher rate than our citizens. Illegal students who carve up computers given them in the class room to use, to learn, they just don't care, it is free and their parents don't care they do not pay taxes to replace the damaged equipment.) (The removal of borders, and national pride.)
3. The emergence of powerful collaborationist parties economically and politically linked with Muslim rulers.” (President who attended Muslim school?)
Reply
Reply to all
Forward
Saturday, April 10, 2010
They created the problem, let them bail themselves out!
I received a letter the other day, one of those 'Important Time Dated Information' ones we seem to get so often. This was my reply, I think you know why.
Citizen For Freedom
4435 N.State Highway 37
Winnsboro, TX. 75494
Joseph L. Larson
April 10, 2010
To; College Republican National Committee
I received your survey (request for money) and once again I am astounded by your inability to grasp facts. I can no longer support the Republican Party, I neither have the money to do so, nor the inclination. The Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party have fallen so far from the Constitution of this once great nation that they should be ashamed of themselves. You have taken every opportunity to spend other peoples money in ways that are both wasteful, but also totally with out the right to do so. There is no place in the Constitution where you are given the right to spend my money, or anyone else's. You can spend your money how ever it pleases you, but what is mine is mine. Under the republican party taxation has grown. To say, but not as fast as under the democrats is a joke, waste and government growth is government growth and waste. I have joined www.goooh.com and if I should be able to support anyone, they will get my money. It is our intention of replacing every representative in congress with someone we can trust. As for the health care bill we intend to see it reversed and make it law that government can never have say in our health care. We will educate the American people to the insidious practice of the two parties working hand in hand to steal our freedoms, our money and our country. You have to be blind not to see the tide turning, how can you expect anyone to believe you are the party of reform, first your senators won't even agree to a 1 year moratorium on pork spending. Yes, pork spending, that nefarious historical waste of tax payers money for things like Murthas' airport, and you want us to vote for people who openly admit they want to practice this? Grow up and get a brain. We don't trust either side and for good reason. Now you bring Newt back with another Contract with America, when you never honored the first one. Do you think college kids can't figure this one out? There are few representative we are going to keep, very few. The only way for you to be a viable party was to listen to the voice of God and make law according to the Constitution. You do neither, so you get no support. None of us are blindly giving money to support a party, when the party does not support America. Look at S.S., Washington had to spend the money in the fund, just because they can't stand to see money not being spent, why did we not hear about the bad choices being made in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack until it was too late, do we need to hire watchers to watch the watchers? How do you explain $300 hammers and $500 toilet seats. We are going to explain it to you at the polls. The finale straw has been the attempted destruction of our Christian beliefs, the restriction on our moments of prayer in public places, we are not turning the other cheek any longer. IN GOD WE TRUST, NO OTHER.
JOSEPH L. LARSON
Citizen For Freedom
Citizen For Freedom
4435 N.State Highway 37
Winnsboro, TX. 75494
Joseph L. Larson
April 10, 2010
To; College Republican National Committee
I received your survey (request for money) and once again I am astounded by your inability to grasp facts. I can no longer support the Republican Party, I neither have the money to do so, nor the inclination. The Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party have fallen so far from the Constitution of this once great nation that they should be ashamed of themselves. You have taken every opportunity to spend other peoples money in ways that are both wasteful, but also totally with out the right to do so. There is no place in the Constitution where you are given the right to spend my money, or anyone else's. You can spend your money how ever it pleases you, but what is mine is mine. Under the republican party taxation has grown. To say, but not as fast as under the democrats is a joke, waste and government growth is government growth and waste. I have joined www.goooh.com and if I should be able to support anyone, they will get my money. It is our intention of replacing every representative in congress with someone we can trust. As for the health care bill we intend to see it reversed and make it law that government can never have say in our health care. We will educate the American people to the insidious practice of the two parties working hand in hand to steal our freedoms, our money and our country. You have to be blind not to see the tide turning, how can you expect anyone to believe you are the party of reform, first your senators won't even agree to a 1 year moratorium on pork spending. Yes, pork spending, that nefarious historical waste of tax payers money for things like Murthas' airport, and you want us to vote for people who openly admit they want to practice this? Grow up and get a brain. We don't trust either side and for good reason. Now you bring Newt back with another Contract with America, when you never honored the first one. Do you think college kids can't figure this one out? There are few representative we are going to keep, very few. The only way for you to be a viable party was to listen to the voice of God and make law according to the Constitution. You do neither, so you get no support. None of us are blindly giving money to support a party, when the party does not support America. Look at S.S., Washington had to spend the money in the fund, just because they can't stand to see money not being spent, why did we not hear about the bad choices being made in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack until it was too late, do we need to hire watchers to watch the watchers? How do you explain $300 hammers and $500 toilet seats. We are going to explain it to you at the polls. The finale straw has been the attempted destruction of our Christian beliefs, the restriction on our moments of prayer in public places, we are not turning the other cheek any longer. IN GOD WE TRUST, NO OTHER.
JOSEPH L. LARSON
Citizen For Freedom
Friday, April 9, 2010
Davey Crocket understood what a congressman needs to know.
From "The life of Colonel David Crockett
By Edward S. Ellis
Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884
DAVEY CROCKETT was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.
I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support—rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:
"Mr. Speaker—I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.
We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount.
There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt.
The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity.
Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.
Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.
I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:
"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."
He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:
"Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."
I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
SEVERAL YEARS AGO I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made 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, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.
The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.
The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.
So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."
He replied:
"I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."
I began:
"Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and…"
"’Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’
This was a sockdolager… I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in 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 Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."
"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."
"No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"
"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."
"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"
Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:
"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be 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 much he pays to the government.
So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.
No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give.
The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."
I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:
"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."
I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go 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 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 full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."
He laughingly replied: "Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."
"If I don’t," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."
"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday a week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."
"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye… I must know your name."
"My name is Bunce."
"Not Horatio Bunce?"
"Yes."
"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."
We shook hands and parted.
It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before. Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before. I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him—no, that is not the word—I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if 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 had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted—at least, they all knew me. In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying: "Fellow citizens—I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."
I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying: "And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."
He came upon the stand and said: "Fellow citizens—It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today." He went down, and there went up from 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 big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.
"NOW, SIR," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.
"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men—men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased—a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
This story reflects the reason the constitution was written, why as guideline for our government and our congress it is the best guideline we have, and when the lines are streached and even as we have seen lately, broken, we can no longer vote for those who favor mis-treatment of this paper, of this document written in the blood of our forefathers and our men and women in uniform today.
Joseph L. Larson
By Edward S. Ellis
Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884
DAVEY CROCKETT was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.
I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support—rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:
"Mr. Speaker—I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.
We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount.
There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt.
The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity.
Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.
Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.
I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:
"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."
He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:
"Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."
I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
SEVERAL YEARS AGO I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made 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, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.
The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.
The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.
So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."
He replied:
"I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."
I began:
"Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and…"
"’Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’
This was a sockdolager… I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in 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 Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."
"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."
"No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"
"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."
"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"
Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:
"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be 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 much he pays to the government.
So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.
No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give.
The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."
I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:
"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."
I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go 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 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 full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."
He laughingly replied: "Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."
"If I don’t," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."
"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday a week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."
"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye… I must know your name."
"My name is Bunce."
"Not Horatio Bunce?"
"Yes."
"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."
We shook hands and parted.
It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before. Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before. I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him—no, that is not the word—I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if 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 had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted—at least, they all knew me. In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying: "Fellow citizens—I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."
I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying: "And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."
He came upon the stand and said: "Fellow citizens—It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today." He went down, and there went up from 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 big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.
"NOW, SIR," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.
"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men—men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased—a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
This story reflects the reason the constitution was written, why as guideline for our government and our congress it is the best guideline we have, and when the lines are streached and even as we have seen lately, broken, we can no longer vote for those who favor mis-treatment of this paper, of this document written in the blood of our forefathers and our men and women in uniform today.
Joseph L. Larson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)