ACTION

CHINA HAS ANNOUNCED IT WILL SUPPORT THE UN

SEIZING JERUSALEM FROM ISRAEL ON SEPT. 20TH.

{ THIS WOULD MEAN WAR } 

Unfortunately, our world is divided between those who have right ideas about making this a better place to live and those who have wrong ideas, who prove themselves right by making it a bad place. I have reference to the inflammatory comments being made by certain people.

Under the law, testimony not based on actual personal knowledge or observation of the facts in controversy, but of other facts from which deductions are drawn, showing indirectly the facts sought to be proved, Black’s Law Dictionary under circumstantial evidence, the evidence from which juries may infer to other connected facts which usually and reasonably follow according to the common experience of mankind, since we agree that juries made up of ordinary people is the best way to determine the right or the wrong of things, why would this not be so in all instances?  Ask  Barack Obama.  We don’t know what he has in mind, and we really should.  Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Pythagoras, an ancient Greek, said to be the father of mathematics, gave the world the Pythagorean theorem. The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the two sides—if this is so, logic associated with numbers, would not numbers be associated with people as well as things?  “If this is so that is so,” you have deduction—circumstantial evidence. Why do we limit logic? Why exclude humans, applying numbers solely to things?

Pythagoras studied mathematics under Egypt’s priesthood.  He was ordained, and sworn to secrecy. We don’t know much about Pythagoras’ philosophy but we know that he discovered a mystical significance in numbers; that the numbers 1 through 9 stand, macrocosmically, for rational principles that govern and develop the universe. In Christian theology, the divine word or reason incarnate in Jesus Christ (John 1:1), the number 1 the beginning of everything, why would it not apply to the beginning of our lives?

Microcosmically, both Pythagoras and the cutting edge of science reason that numbers stand for characteristics, abilities and events. Pythagoras (and more lately science) knew that reality is of our making.  

In the Bible, we read that God made heaven and earth.  He made all other life forms and on the sixth day made man.  In numerology, 6 stands for conscientious, the desire to bring harmony, truth, and a sense of balance into the environment. Love and compassion are uppermost in the number 6.  The number 6 is the teacher, the healer.

In the Bible, on the seventh day, God, knowing he had done good, rested. The seventh day, the Sabbath, is a day of rest and meditation.  In numerology, 7 seeks answers. It tries to establish a philosophy by which to live and attempts to penetrate the mystery behind its existence—never before questioned.  Because solitude is necessary for analysis, the 7 feels the need to spend time alone, away from the crowds—in touch with nature.  Long sought goals, I can tell you, are magically realized when we take time to think about our lives.

We see a connection with Egypt’s priesthood, numbers, and the Bible.  Pythagoras saw in the heavens both quantity and quality.  While figures represented quantity, numbers represented the spiritual quality in us.

Because every number over 9 reduces to 1 to 9, and these numbers are basic to quantity and quality, with understanding of all that numbers represent, one can understand an orderly progression.  Many lives are out of sync with life’s intended progression.  It all reverts back to the individual.  In order to be in sync with the universe, you’ve got to be in line with the numbers. Once you realize this, you don’t feel threatened. You feel like you are in control.  What does this say about name callers?  They are more to be pitied than censored.

Note: See How to Sync with the Higher Law

It was all I could do to refrain from throwing something across the room today when I heard that Obozo has ignored his generals again, and is going to require our troop strength in Iraq be reduced to around 3.000.  News reports said that Leon Panetta "acquiesced" with the White House demands, to which an unrepeatable howl of rage erupted in my household.  Panetta is linked at the hip to the White House, for God's sake.  I reported on, and hounded 7471 elected officials (yes--that number is correct) about Panetta's long history of treason earlier this year, to no avail. 

So just in the off-chance you may have missed this nugget (nothing to do with Panetta, YET, and everything to do with the seditious SOB in the White House) here is something to be paying attention to:

Vallely: Iran Goal EMPs on US Coastal Cities in Reach 
Bob Beauprez 

Given the fact that Iran has been contributing heavily to our casualties in both Iraq and Afghanistan for a long time, and the perceived weakness of a Muslim Anarchist in the White House here in the USofA, there is more going on here than meets the eye.

Take, for example, the thug Jimmy Hoffa Jr. calling Tea Party folks "sons-of-bitches", and that idiot Biden calling us "barbarians at the gate", both of these contemptible totalitarian thugs inciting violence we've never before seen in any political theater in this nation.  

And then we find this gem, as if this traitor-in-chief thought anything different would result from his un-Constitutional actions in Libya---we wondered why all of a sudden Libya was so important to this tin-pot American dictator:

Jihadists plot to take over Libya

Jihadists among the Libyan rebels revealed plans last week on the Internet to subvert the post-Moammar Gadhafi government and create an Islamist state, according to U.S. intelligence agencies.

U.S. officials said spy agencies are stepping up surveillance of Islamist-oriented elements among Libyan rebels. A government report circulated Tuesday said extremists were observed “strategizing” on Internet forums about how to set up an Islamist state in Libya after the regime of Col. Gadhafi is defeated.

“Several forum participants have suggested that, following a transitional stage, the battle should turn against secularist rebels and members of the [rebels’] Transitional National Council,” the unclassified report stated.

Some U.S. officials sought to play down the remarks by noting that such Internet postings are not always accurate measures of jihadist plans.

The report said the jihadists’ strength and influence on the ground “are uncertain at this time.”

Read More at the Washington Times By Bill Gertz, The Washington Times

My question would be, AGAIN, HOW MUCH MORE ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GOING TO TAKE BEFORE THESE BASTARDS ARE REMOVED FROM POWER, EITHER BY DECLARATION OR BY FORCE, OR A COMBINATION THEREOF?  There are remedies, but with the courts now stacked also, we're running out of options, and out of time.  I believe that Sept. 11 and/or 17 will be a watershed moment in our history.  Whether it's a good or a bad one probably depends entirely on us.  

We have a Muslim Anarchist in the White House, he is surrounded by the same, and also by violent racists in the Congressional Black Caucus, the Democratic Socialists of America, the Unions, and a great many blacks and latinos in this nation just spoiling for a fight.

I wish I had a better plan than lock & load, but I don't know if we have the time left.  Sure, there's lots of plans, lots of options.  I just don't believe that we'll be given the time to use them.  I know some of these folks look like complete idiots, but remember one thing: It is their kind that have destroyed entire civilizations for thousands of years.  DON'T FORGET THAT.

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city—he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared." ......Cicero, 42 B.C.E

Satire by John W. Lillpop Throughout the ages, America has opened her arms and made room for a diverse mix of people and circumstances. We have overcome prejudices against women, African-Americans, Hispanics, and other racial minorities. Our big tent has expanded to include gays and lesbians, transvestites, the handicapped, the blind, the stupid (Mostly liberals), Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, Jews, Hindus, and other religious minorities. America has embraced " Our diversity is our greatest strength" as the national slogan in our multicultural potpourri of insufferable tolerance and political correctness gone amuck. Despite all of the social "progress" that has blessed this land, there is one class of people, despised like none other, for whom the bells of tolerance and acceptance have yet to toll. That, would be the rich, the most abused, maligned, misunderstood, and persecuted minority in human history. Being rich is such a wretched offense that, in and of itself, it can mitigate the social advantages that would normally accrue to those who are in one or more of the "protected" categories. For example, a blind and deaf, non-English speaking, pregnant, lesbian, Hispanic illegal alien who suffers from chronic alcoholism and drug addiction, and who is a practicing Muslim terrorist specializing in IEDs, would normally be a favorite daughter to ACLU and La Raza lawyers, government bureaucrats, and liberal politicians looking for a victim to exploit for cheap political gain. However, let that same miserable urchin have more than $1,000. in the bank, and be in possession of an automobile more snazzy than a 1990 Saturn with 300,000 miles on it, and you have a veritable Untouchable on your hands. According to liberals, being rich is one of the most unpatriotic and un-American offenses that one can commit, nearly as unforgivable as blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Unless, that is, one's name happens to be Obama, Pelosi, Kennedy, Gore, Rockefeller, Bloomberg, Clinton, Soros, Winfrey, or any number of rich liberals whom are immune from the type of wealth-based character flaws that doom conservatives. When you think about it, though, the rich should pay LESS, not more, taxes than the rest of us. After all, the rich do not use public schools, opting instead to send their children to private schools. The rich do not collect food stamps, welfare payments, disability checks, or unemployment perks. The rich do not depend on the U.S. military to educate, feed, and house their children, preferring instead to send their kids to Yale, Harvard, Stanford, or Princeton. The rich do not urinate in public and make pests of themselves outside Home Depot stores while waiting for a $5.00 "job opportunity" to appear. The rich do not rely on public defenders to work their way out from under silly scrapes with the law. The rich do not send their pregnant, unmarried daughters to Planned Parenthood or other public infanticide outlets, preferring instead to whisk their 'child with child' off to a castle nestled discreetly in the Swiss Alps where the whole sordid affair can be handled with dignity and sans unwanted attention. Only a morally bankrupt institution, like the Democrat Party for example, would consider it acceptable to force people who use the least services to pay the most taxes! This gross injustice must not stand. The American sense of fairness and equality demands that the yoke of discrimination not burden those, who through no fault of their own, are rich. We must pass a constitutional amendment to extend the protection and dignity of equality to the most vulnerable minority in our society--the filthy rich.

I awoke and became annoyed when I discovered Mary forgot to pay the water bill. That was the extent of my problems September 11, 2001. Meanwhile, many of my fellow Americans in the twin towers were faced with the unimaginable horror of deciding whether to leap to their deaths or be consumed by fire. Dear Lord.

Ten years after 9/11 Mayor Bloomberg banned prayer from the New York 9/11 Memorial Ceremony. And yet, Bloomberg supports the building of a mosque at Ground Zero.

The left supports Sharia Law while President Obama canceled the traditional National Day of Prayer at the White House for fear of offending Muslims.

Remarkably, thanks to the grace of God and the efforts of George W. Bush, America has not suffered another terrorist attack. And yet, the Obama administration is still seeking to prosecute CIA heroes who helped to protect us.

Terrorists caught on the battle field detained at Guantanamo Bay are treated with kid gloves; special concessions made out of respect for their religion, Islam, which includes meal choices from five menus, served at a specific temperature or thrown out and prepared again.

Muslim detainees are given prayer beads, a prayer mat and a Quran which can not be touched by non-Muslims because we are considered infidels. Thus, a Muslim interpretor gives the detainees their sacred items. At Guantanamo, arrows painted on the floor pointing east informs detainees in which direction to pray.

Meanwhile, three U.S. Navy Seals are facing court marital for allegedly giving a terrorist a fat lip.

Clearly, ten years after the horrific 9/11 attacks, America has two enemies seeking her destruction; Al-Qaeda and the American left who reside mostly in the Democratic Party lead by Barack Husein Obama. To save America, BOTH must be defeated.

The Bible documents on numerous occasions how God raised up a remnant. The modern equivalent of God raising up a remnant is the Tea Party movement; no leader, no figure head and no single governing organization. The Tea Party is simple We The People; individuals following their gifts and passions to turn our country around back to the principles and values which have made her GREAT!

The left is in panic mode to counter the Tea Party. Because their philosophy is so flawed, they can not win on it's merit. Thus, the left must resort to lies and ginning up class envy and racial hatred. Totally despicable.

I will spend 9/11 on Tea Party Express V national bus tour at our rally in Deltona, FL.

With forces on both sides of the political aisle fighting to maintain the status quo; crony-ism, bigger government and even increasing out of control spending, the tea party is the last hope for America; God's remnant to save America and restore her to her former glory.

Jeff Bruzzo 9/11 tribute film: www.911tributefilm.com

Lloyd Marcus 9/11 tribute music video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWdbQQ679zk

Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American

Co-Chairman of The Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama.

Please help me spread my message by joining my Liberty Network.

Lloyd is singer/songwriter of the American Tea Party Anthem and author of Confessions of a Black Conservative, foreword by Michele Malkin

LloydMarcus.com

SOMEWHERE I HEAR ORWELL CRYING

An Interview with Author Charly Gullett

Excerpts from the interview with my husband on his new book BEIRUT ARIZONA...you won't see this on Hannity tonight. AJ
=========

COVERT: The provisioning of cartels with weapons from the US has been informally characterized as an act of war against Mexico; do you agree?

GULLETT: No, I don't think it rises to that. But the ATF wasn't exactly acting in the role of peace-giver either. It is easy to see why some Mexican officials are calling this a violation of sovereignty and demanding that the individuals in the ATF/DEA/FBI, etc. responsible for the deaths of several Mexican officials, more than 150 police and probably hundreds of innocent Mexican citizens as a result of Operation Fast and Furious be turned over to the Government of Mexico for trial. Good luck on that. US Attorney General Eric Holder won't even give up documents to our own Congress.

COVERT: In your book (BEIRUT ARIZONA), you charge that an unholy alliance among renegade agents of our government, Mexican drug cartels and Islamic Jihadists in the Middle East exists and is aiding Mexican drug cartels. Why do you believe that the drug cartels would aid terrorists in physical attacks within the border of the United States, attacking their own customers?

GULLETT: I don't think this is any more complicated than the old adage "...the enemy of my enemy is my friend". In the end, I think the perception by American liberals of Mexican drug cartels as businessmen victimized by antiquated American drug laws, and the view that Islam is peaceful religion is entirely erroneous and we suffer the consequences of this psychological denial.

These are two competing criminal gangs composed of thugs; one secular, the other mystical but both are criminal organizations and if successful will eventually compete over the same turf. In the mean time, they work together in order to position themselves for this final reckoning. Like Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy during WWII, each believes themselves powerful enough to withstand the partnership.

COVERT: If your thesis is true regarding Hezbollah, do you think this nexus between cartels and Hezbollah, the arms trafficking are also an act of war against Mexico?

GULLETT: Absolutely. Hezbollah and the Mexican drug cartels are not just running a few guns or selling a few bags of dope to aging American hippies; these are enormous international criminal syndicates who are violating not only international drug and weapons trafficking laws but in the case of Islam are clearly intending on taking over the world and absorbing it into the new world caliphate so that "...Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions..."

Read the entire interview  written by Chris Covert at: FreeFireZone
Read the introduction to the book at: WarfieldPress.com

fromPhilosophy: Who Needs It - Address To The Graduating Class Of
The United States Military Academy at West Point
New York — March 6, 1974

by Ayn Rand

In conclusion, allow me to speak in personal terms. This evening means a great deal to me. I feel deeply honored by the opportunity to address you. I can say — not as a patriotic bromide, but with full knowledge of the necessary metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and esthetic roots — that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world.

Where are those who would lead us?  Is there anyone out there with this integrity, this thinking, this essential grasp of our Founding Principles?  That is a question we must be asking, DEMANDING an answer to!!!  And I don't HEAR what we NEED TO BE HEARING and SEEING in ACTION!!!

Patriotism

Not Yours To Give

Col. David Crockett
US Representative from Tennessee

Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," 
by Edward Sylvester Ellis.

One day in the House of Representatives 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. The Speaker was just about to put the question when 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, 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 not the 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.

"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 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 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.

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 houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. 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 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 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 worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.
…But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistakeabout 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 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 saythat 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 overflowingTreasury, 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 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.'

" 'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

" ‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

" ‘If I don't’, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

" ‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

" 'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-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.'

"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 known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the 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 up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

" ‘Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’"

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation 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 for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

"He came upon the stand and said:

" ‘Fellow-citizens - It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.

"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000,  when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

[Home] [About Us] [Breaking News] [Commentary] [Contact Us]  [Discussion Groups] [Education] [Guest Commentator's] [Political News] [Store]

THIS IS FROM THE INIMITABLE KEVIN CRONIN, GOP BOARD MEMBER FOR RACINE  COUNTY WISCONSIN :

I hear plenty of talk of write-in votes for the 2012 presidential race. Apparently the people that intend to write-in a candidate don't understand the repercussions of their planned actions. A write-in vote is the same as a vote for Obama.
Not all Conservatives will be happy with the GOP nomination, but writing in your favorite candidate is not only unwise but selfish.
A write-in candidate has no chance of winning. No third party candidate has a chance of winning. Hence, a vote for a write-in or third party candidate is a wasted vote. It equates a vote for liberalism. Can you say Ross Perot?
The future of our freedom is at stake. Every vote is needed to defeat the socialist movement.
I understand people's convictions; however, common sense must prevail. The country may not survive another four years of this administration.
In 1912 Teddy Roosevelt ran as a progressive and split the GOP vote with Taft and as a result Woodrow Wilson won the election.
Think! Think of what we are fighting for. Think of what we are fighting against. We are on the same side! There is too much at stake.

The GOp is trying yet once again to run RINOS. Look, if we let Obama win once again perhaps the GOP will finally get it that we want a real conservative. It may take this for them to hit bottom. I don't care if Sarah is dumb as rocks, at least she has been consistently conservative, about the only one out there. This clown that supported All Gore AND WAS A DEMOCRAT, give me a break. 

I stayed home for McCain and I will stay home unless its Sarah. 

See, what the GOP doesn't understand is that there are a lot of us to where we are willing to play chicken with them. We will not be intimidated by being scaired. That we will not settle for midrange, RINOS that might as well be Dems.

I no longer care. Its the principle of the thing. Thats its. I stayed home before and I will stay home again. I got fooled by W and Arnold too. I'm done. 

If Obama destroys the country, so be it. A rino will too, just a bit slower.