Notice: This website may or may not use or set cookies used by Google Ad-sense or other third party companies. If you do not wish to have cookies downloaded to your computer, please disable cookie use in your browser. Thank You.


Sunday, January 30, 2011

History Lesson on Your Social Security Card

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!

Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message was removed.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,

No longer Voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program.

Now 7.65% on the first $90,000, although we get a break this year on the percentage we have to pay.

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.

No longer tax deductible

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program.

Under President Lyndon Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate. (If you paid attention to the beginning of the post, you would have got this one right).

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Gen Giap confirms what we all know

"What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battle of TET. You defeated us!"

"We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But we were elated to notice your media was helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!"

General Giap has published his memoirs and confirmed what most Americans knew. The Vietnam war was not lost in Vietnam -- it was lost at home. The same slippery slope, sponsored by the US media, is currently underway. It exposes the enormous power of a Biased Media to cut out the heart and will of the American public.

A truism worthy of note: ... Do not fear the enemy, for they can take only your life. Fear the media, for they will destroy your honor.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

A California Principal's Opening Message to Students

A principal at a high school in Redding, California, on the first day of classes in 2010:

To the students and faculty of our high school:

I am your new principal, and honored to be so. There is no greater calling than to teach young people.

I would like to apprise you of some important changes coming to our school. I am making these changes because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated public education in America have worked against you, against your teachers, and against our country.

First, this school will no longer honor race or ethnicity. I could not care less if your racial makeup is black, brown, red, yellow, or white. I could not care less if your origins are African, Latin American, Asian, or European, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower or on slave ships.

The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity -- your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school will care about is American. This
is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans.

If you wish to affirm an ethnic, racial, or religious identity through school, you will have to go elsewhere. We will end all ethnicity-, race- and non-American-nationality-based celebrations. They undermine the motto of America , one of its three central values -- E Pluribus Unum -- "from many, one." And this school will be guided by America 's values.

Cowboy's Comment: I thought our motto was "One Nation Under God",...well, all is good. Finish reading this Principal's address.

That includes all after-school clubs. I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness.

Your clubs will be based on interests and passions -- not blood, ethnic, racial or other physically defined ties. Those clubs just cultivate narcissism -- an unhealthy preoccupation with the self -- while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself. So we will have clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, astronomy, languages you do not already speak, carpentry, and more. If the only extracurricular activities you can imagine being interested in are those based on ethnic or racial or sexual identity, that means that little outside of yourself really interests you.

Second, I am not interested in whether English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you leave this school speaking and writing English as fluently as possible. The English language has united America's citizens for more than 200 years, and it will unite us at this school. It is one of the indispensable reasons this country of immigrants has always come to be one country, and if you leave this school without excellent English-language skills, I will have been remiss in my duty to ensure that you are prepared to compete successfully in the American job market. We will learn other languages here -- it is deplorable that most Americans only speak English. But if you want classes taught in your native language rather than in English, this is not your school.

Third, because I regard learning as a sacred endeavor, everything in this school will reflect learning's elevated status. This means, among other things, that you and your teachers will dress accordingly. Many people in our society dress more formally for a meal at a nice restaurant than they do for church or school. These people have their priorities backwards. Therefore, there will be a formal dress code at this school.

Fourth, no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere on this school's property -- whether in class, in the hallways or at athletic events. If you can't speak without using the "F-word," you can't speak. By obscene language I mean the words banned by the Federal Communications Commission plus epithets such as the "N-word," even when used by one black student to address another, or "bitch," even when addressed by a girl to a girlfriend. It is my intent that by the time you leave this school, you will be among the few of your age to distinguish instinctively between the elevated and the degraded, the holy and the obscene.

Fifth, we will end all self-esteem programs. In this school self-esteem will be attained in only one way -- the way people attained it until the state of California decided otherwise a generation ago -- by earning it. One immediate consequence is that there will be one valedictorian, not eight.

Sixth, and last, I am reorienting the school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will be devoted to scaring you about smoking and caffeine, or terrifying you about sexual harassment or global warming. No more semesters will be devoted to condom-wearing and teaching you to regard sexual relations as only or primarily a health issue. There will be no more attempts to convince you that you are a victim because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual, or not Christian. We will have failed if any one of you graduates from this school and does not consider him or herself inordinately lucky -- to be alive and to be an American.

Now, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. As many of you do not know the words, your teachers will hand them out to you.

WOW! We need more Educators like this one!

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Doctors Versus Gun Owners

Since I did a post on Wal-Mart versus Morons (meaning the Government), thought I drop another one, this time - Doctors versus Gun Owners.


(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.

(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.

Now think about this:

Gun Onwers

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188

Statistics courtesy of FBI

So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'

FACT: Not everyone has a gun, but almost everyone has at least one Doctor.

This means you are over 900 times more likely to be killed by a doctor as a gun owner!!!

Out of concern for the public at large, we are withholding the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention!

Also, I just know some of you liberals are going to raise a stink saying "well, at least Doctors ave lives!" My reply, is so do guns! Way too many incidents of law abiding citizens saving their own lives or the lives of innocent others using a gun to twart a criminal action. Now, if you really want to get into the numbers, lets consider the 106,000 people who die from Rx drugs prescribed by Doctors!

And seriously,...are we still having the conversation about guns being evil? If a person can't reason that it's the individual that commits murder, then we have no basis to start a conversation, because they are too stupid to keep up.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Walm-Mart versus the Morons

Sent to me awhile back, and as I read it, it makes perfect sense. Get people with proven track records to run the Government. The academics, usual political hacks and wealth distribution proponents that currently fill Obama's cabinent and hidden cabinent (Czars) have failed.

1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart every hour of every day.

2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target +Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people, is the world's largest private employer, and most speak English.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only fifteen years.

8. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had five years ago.

11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at Wal-Mart stores. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 Billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a Wal-Mart.

You may t hink that I am complaining, but I am really laying the ground work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to fix the economy.

This should be read and understood by all Americans Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!!

To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature,

It is now official you are ALL corrupt morons:

A.. The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.

b.. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.
c.. Fannie Mae was establish ed in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.

d.. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

e.. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.

f.. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.

g.. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.




Friday, January 21, 2011

Florida Court Sets Atheist Holy Day!

Sent ot us by an old Cowboy I know from Southern New Mexico. And I don't know how many times we gott say it, but this is Country was founded on Christian principles. There is no such constitutional mandate for "separtion of Church and State". The First Amendment simply does not allow for a Federal Religion. Having said that, we believe in a secular Federal government, however the left takes it much too far,....

Gotta love this Judge!

You must read this.......a proper decision by the courts...for a change.


In Florida , an atheist created a case against Easter and Passover Holy days.

He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians and Jews and observances of their holy days. The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.

The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, "Case dismissed!"

The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, "Your honor, How can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays.."

The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant."

The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."

The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that, if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day.

Court is adjourned.."; You gotta love a Judge that knows his scripture!

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Thomas Jefferson - Did You Know This?

Thomas Jefferson was a very remarkable man who started learning very early in life and never stopped. Here is the Cliff Notes version of his accomplishments.

At 5, began studying under his cousins tutor.

At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.

At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.

At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.

At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.

At 23, started his own law practice.

At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.

At 31, wrote the widely circulated "Summary View of the Rights of British America" and retired from his law practice.

At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.

At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence.

At 33, took three years to revise Virginia?s legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.

At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.

At 40, served in Congress for two years.

At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.

At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.

At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.

At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party.

At 57, was elected the third president of the United States.

At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation?s size.

At 61, was elected to a second term as President.

At 65, retired to Monticello.

At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.

At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its first president.

At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Reader comment on the Repeal Obamacare

Reader comment on the Repeal Obamacare Post of a few weeks ago;

Anonymous said...
I am over 60 I have raised four children work for the DOD and also a veteran. Now that somebody has finally done something that can be useful you want to repeal it just look what I have seen I can recall all of the help for the rich 2% of this country but not anything of any good that your party has done for me that would help it always sounds good when you put your spin on it but nothing that the republicans have done in the past 45 years has help Me or my family you always cost me with your trickle down economics and your still trying to continue it. I get it you are for the top 2% it a waste of money what you are trying to do you know it will not work instead of repeal sit down and fix it you know it should have been the public option . It was block all the way by the republicans so just what are you for! Give me a list of anything good that you have done for this country I mean I want to see a list of what you have done for the last 45 years that helped this country grow. I’m waiting it’s a very very short list a list means you can put more than one Item. What? You have one let me know!

Cowboy's Reply: Thank you Sir for your response. You are also entitled to our thanks for your service,...and you are entitled to your opinion,....just not your own facts.

The fact is that the richest 2% of Americans pay the lion's share of Taxes. At one time their tax rate was 75%.....Bush lowered it to something like 35%, down from 39.5%. If you make less than $250,000 a year then you not only pay a lower share of taxes but you pay at a lower rate instead. Nobody has yet to explain to the American people why any group should pay a disproportionate share of their income to the Government. This destroys initiative, as does the monstrosity called Obamacare. The Republicans brought you the lower tax rate you now enjoy. Oh yeah, plus they have kept the Socialists at bay since 1946 up until when Obama took office.

Speaking of Obamacare,....How anyone can defend it defies common sense. This bill was never debated. It was written by Democrats hidden in committee without any Republican input then voted on by Congress before anyone could read it.

If Obamacare is so good why have all the large organizations such as unions and the AARP received waivers from the Government so they are exempt from Obamacare? What is Congress exempt? Come on Partner, don't be a fool.

As far as you asking me to give you a list of what I have done for this country in the last 45 years,....well, that would be starting when I was 7 years old, and I knew the difference between right and wrong. Wrong to take money that does not belong to you,...kinda like the Federal Government. I served 22 years in the Armed Forces in a Combat Unit and earned the CIB.

Monday, January 17, 2011

Chicago Politics and the White House Fence

Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the White House.
One is from Chicago, another is from Tennessee, and the third is from Minnesota.
All three go with a White House official to examine the fence.

The Minnesota contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil. "Well," he says, "I figure the job will run about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit for me."

The Tennessee contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, "I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me."

The Chicago contractor doesn't measure or figure, but leans over to the White House official and whispers, "$2,700."

The official, incredulous, says, "You didn't even measure like the other guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?"

The Chicago contractor whispers back, "$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we hire the guy from Tennessee to fix the fence."

"Done!" replies the government official.

And that, my friends, is how the new stimulus plan works.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Ann Coulter on the Tucson Massacre

When the liberal media (am I being redundant here?) develops their own "facts" and spews forth their propaganda, there is no one better than Ann Coulter to counter with the truth and her sharp wit.

After the monstrous shooting in Arizona last week, surely we can all agree that we've got to pass Obama's agenda immediately and stop using metaphors.

At least I think that's what the mainstream media are trying to tell me.

Liberals instantly leapt on the sickening massacre at a Tucson political event over the weekend to accuse tea partiers, Sarah Palin and all conservatives who talk out loud of being complicit in murder by inspiring the shooter, Jared Loughner.

Of course, to make their case, they first must demonstrate:

a) Right-wingers have called for violence against anyone, especially conservative, pro-Second Amendment Democratic congresswomen; b) Loughner was listening to them; and c) Loughner was influenced by them.

They've proved none of this. In fact, it's nearly the opposite.

Needless to say, no conservative has called for violence against anyone. Nor has any conservative engaged in any "rhetoric" that was likely to lead to violence. Every putative example of "violent rhetoric" these squeamish liberals produce keeps being matched by an identical example from the Democrats.

Sarah Palin, for example, had a chart of congressional districts being targeted by Republicans. So did the Democratic Leadership Committee. Indeed, Democratic consultant Bob Beckel went on Fox News and said he invented the bull's-eye maps.

Similarly, every time liberals produce an example of military lingo from a Republican – "we're going to target this district" – Republicans produce five more from the Democrats.

President "whose a--es to kick" Obama predicted "hand-to-hand combat" with his political opponents and has made such remarks as "if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" – making Obama the first American president to advocate gun fights since Andrew Jackson.

These are figures of speech known as "metaphors." (Do liberals know where we got the word "campaign"?)

It's not that both sides did something wrong; neither side did anything wrong. The drama queens need to settle down.

The winner of the most cretinous statement of 2011 – and the list is now closed, so please hold your submissions – is MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who on Monday night recalled Palin's statement, "We're not retreating, we're reloading," and said, I quote, "THAT'S not a metaphor."

Really, Chris? If that's not a metaphor, whom did she shoot?

By blaming a mass killing on figures of speech, liberals sound as crazy as Loughner with his complaints about people's grammar. Maybe in lieu of dropping all metaphors, liberals should demand we ban metonyms so that tragedies like this will never happen again.

As for Loughner being influenced by tea partiers, Fox News and talk radio – oops, another dead-end. According to all available evidence, Loughner is a liberal.

Every friend of Loughner who has characterized his politics has described him as liberal. Not one called him a conservative.

One friend says Loughner never listened to talk radio or watched the TV news. Throw in "never read books" and you have the dictionary definition of a liberal. Being completely uninformed is precisely how most liberals stay liberal.

According to voluminous Twitter postings on Saturday by one of Loughner's friends since high school, Caitie Parker, he was "left wing," "a political radical" "quite liberal" and "a pot head."

If any public figure influenced this guy, my money's on Bill Maher.

But liberals have been so determined to exploit this tragedy to geld conservatives, they have told calculated lies about Loughner's politics.

In the most bald-faced lie I have ever read in the New York Times – which is saying something – that paper implied Loughner is a pro-life zealot. This is the precise opposite of the truth.

Only because numerous other news outlets, including ABC News and the Associated Press, reported the exact same shocking incident in much greater detail – and with direct quotes – do we know that the Times' rendition was complete bunk.

ABC News reported: " One Pima Community College student, who had a poetry class with Loughner later in his college career, said he would often act 'wildly inappropriate.'

"'One day (Loughner) started making comments about terrorism and laughing about killing the baby,' classmate Don Coorough told ABC News, referring to a discussion about abortions. 'The rest of us were looking at him in shock. ... I thought this young man was troubled.'

"Another classmate, Lydian Ali, recalled the incident as well.

"'A girl had written a poem about an abortion. It was very emotional and she was teary eyed and he said something about strapping a bomb to the fetus and making a baby bomber,' Ali said."

Here's the Times' version: "After another student read a poem about getting an abortion, Mr. Loughner compared the young woman to a 'terrorist for killing the baby.'"

So that's how the Times transformed Loughner from a sicko laughing about a dead fetus to a deadly earnest pro-life fanatic. (Never believe a news story written by Eric Lipton, Charlie Savage or Scott Shane of the New York Times – or for simplicity, anything in the Times.)

I wouldn't have mentioned Loughner's far-left worldview immediately after a tragedy like this, but now that liberals have opened the door by blaming Loughner's politics, they better brace themselves.

And when I say "brace themselves," I don't mean they need to actually strap themselves into a brace. That's a metaphor.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

States Going Bankrupt - Illinois Increase Income Tax

Illinois, home to corrupt Chicago style politics and a 9.6% unemployment rate, recently voted to raise individual state income tax 66%. This means an annual increase of $800 per year for a person making a $40,000 annual salary.

Additionally the Corporate Tax rate was raised 45%. Illinois currently has over 80 Billion in unfunded pensions - the unions at work again destroying this country state by state.

Indiana is stoked. They'll get more business as people and companies leave Illinois.

What is it about creating jobs that the democrats don't get? Look at the video below. Note the Voting board where you can see that there were 2 state legislators abstaining and 6 not voting. ARE YOU KIDDIN' ME!

Well after all this is what then Illinois senator Barack Obama did - not vote or take a position that is. Yep, Chicago style politics,....worse than South Texas.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Hillsdale College and Imprimis

If you listen to Conservative Talk Radio, you have undoubtedly heard Mark Levin, a Constitutional Scholar. And if you have heard Mark Levin you have heard him talk about about Hillsdale College.

Hillsdale College is nationally known for its refusal to accept federal or state taxpayer support. Their aim is to raise up a new generation of leaders for America who share a passion for liberty, who believe in the free-enterprise system, and who want to restore the principles of limited government enshrined in the Constitution of the United States.

Hillsdale publishes Imprimis, which is Latin for “In the First Place.” It’s about restoring “first principles” – the principles of liberty that made America the freest, most prosperous nation in human history.

Specifically, Imprimis is a digest of the best speeches that are given at Hillsdale College events throughout the year by some of America’s (and the world’s) most influential conservative leaders, as well as commentary and analysis on national and international events.

Past speakers in this series (dating back to 1972) have included such political, intellectual and business leaders as:

• Former President Ronald Reagan
• Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
• Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman
• Publisher Steve Forbes
• Pulitzer Prize winning columnist George Will
• FOX News commentators Fred Barnes and Brit Hume
• Free market economist Walter Williams
• Former Secretary of Education William Bennett
• Economist and author Thomas Sowell
• Florida Governor Jeb Bush
• Radio host and political commentator Rush Limbaugh

Not everyone can be in attendance to hear these landmark speeches by these great leaders. But you can read the best of them every month in Imprimis.

You can go to the Hillsdale website and join the over 1.9 million Americans who are receiving Imprimis for free.

click here:

Monday, January 10, 2011

Congresswoman's Gifford's Shooting

I'm sure you have heard about Congresswoman Gifford's tragic shooting. Some low life scum bag with a handgun almost killed her as well as actually killing several other people, including a Federal Judge, and most tragically a 9 year old girl. It is shame that people are speaking about this from a political perspective. I pulled up this article from Yahoo! news written by Holly Bailey. At the bottom of this post, I have included my comment and some by various following this article and my rebuttal to them.

In the aftermath of the Giffords’ shooting, a debate over heated political rhetoric

Has the country's increasingly heated political rhetoric gotten dangerously out of control?

That's the debate in the aftermath of Saturday's shooting rampage in Arizona, that left 6 dead and 14 others wounded, including Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. The Arizona congresswoman remains in a medically induced coma after being shot at point-blank range in the head by 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner.

While Loughner's exact motives remain unknown, the shooting quickly set off a back and forth about the toxic tone of the nation's political discourse and whether it may have played a role in the attack.

On Saturday, Arizona authorities suggested that's a theory they are pursuing.

"There's reason to believe that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol," Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said in a news conference Saturday. "People tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech, but it's not without consequences."

The sheriff's comments echoed remarks Giffords herself made last year during the height of the 2010 midterm elections. In an interview with MSNBC last March, the Democratic lawmaker, who had been the target of threats over her vote on health care reform, noted her inclusion on list of lawmakers Sarah Palin was targeting for defeat that featured gun-related imagery. "The way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district," Giffords said at the time. "When people do that, they have got to realize there are consequences to that action."

On Sunday, politicians from both sides of the aisle cautioned against inflamed rhetoric, but that didn't stop the finger-pointing.

On CNN's State of the Union, Richard Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, referred to the Palin map that listed Giffords as a target as a sign of "toxic rhetoric" that had gone too far—though he insisted he wasn't making a "direct connection" between Palin and Saturday's shootings.

"Don't we have an obligation, those of us in public life and those who cover us to say, 'This is beyond the bounds?'" Durbin told CNN. "We owe it to our own in both political parties to have at least the good sense and common decency when people say these outrageous things to say, 'Wait a minute, that just goes too far,' whether it comes from the right or from the left."

In GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander said he agreed with Durbin that people should "cool it" and "tone it down." Still, he warned that people should be "very careful about imputing the motives" of the shooter—though he went out of his way to note that Loughner didn't appear to be a member of the tea party, which some have implied.

"What we know about this individual is that he read Karl Marx; he read Hitler. We know he was burning the American flag," Alexander said. "That's not the profile of a typical tea party member."

In an interview with Fox News Sunday, Rep. James Clyburn, the No. 3 Democrat in the House, reminded viewers of former Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle's call for supporters last year to take "Second Amendment remedies"

"What does that mean? That is a very vitriolic statement, and I think that somebody is responsible for speaking up and denouncing that kind of stuff," Clyburn said. "When you don't denounce it, people keep ratcheting it up and people get to a point where you cross the line. And I think that in this instance, this issue has crossed the line."

Still, the debate is likely to rage over the use of gun imagery in campaigns. As Politics Daily's Jill Lawrence writes, Palin is hardly the first politician to use gun imagery in politics. It's something that everybody--Democrats, Republicans and media--has done.

For her part, Palin offered her "sincere condolences" to the victims in a statement on Saturday. At the same time staffers removed the map from the ex-Alaska governor's political site, though it remained available on her Facebook page. Rebecca Mansour, a Palin aide, told a GOP radio host that the graphics on the map was not a gun sight but a "surveyor's symbol." (Palin, herself, referred to the graphic as a "bullseye.")

Per the Alaska Dispatch, Mansour said attempts to link Palin to the shooting were "obscene" and "appalling." She insisted that there is "nothing irresponsible about our graphic."

Briefing reporters Sunday, FBI Director Robert Mueller reiterated that it was still "premature" to say why Loughner targeted Giffords. But he acknowledged the vast amount of inflammatory rhetoric on the internet had made it more difficult for law enforcement agencies to identify and track potential threats.

"The ubiquitous nature of the internet means that not only threats, but hate speech and other inciteful speech is much more readily available to individuals than quite clearly it was eight or ten or fifteen years ago," Mueller said. "That absolutely presents a challenge for us, particularly when it results in what would be lone wolves or lone offenders undertaking attacks."

Cowboy's comment: How come every lunatic using a gun is associated by the liberal and socialist media as conservatives, republicans or tea party activists? This is a rhetorical question as the answer is obvious,....Conservatives are the true keepers of the Constitution therefore protectors of the rights, God given and otherwise, articulated by the Constitution. The Palin haters, the big government supports, the welfare advocates and the dyed in the wool socialists will try to turn this criminal act into something driven by Conservative speak.

Here's what some idiots are saying:

"I see Fox news as stirring up hate and fear, because that's what I see my more conservative friends and family watch. I don't see the liberal media as that." - from FIVENOTE on blog.

Cowboy's comment:Well FIVENOTE, you are an idiot. I guess everyone easily forgets about the hate speech from Democrats on George Bush, Dick Cheney,...oh yeah, and on the military - accusing them of murder in the Iraq war.

"What infuriating words have pushed this poor young person so far as to turning him into a big mass murderer? Do not blame him alone. Unfortunately he is the only one who is going to pay with his life, plus all the other people who lost theirs and also that congresswoman fighting to stay alive. All those preaching hate will be there watching and condemning him." - from MINE on blog.

Cowboy's comment:"Do not blame him alone?" What drugs have you been taking? Then who is responsible? Violent TV shows? Xbox games shows? Maybe somebody took the shooter's lunch when he was in grade school. How about some frigging personal responsibility?.....Oh, MINE - you're an idiot.

"Contact your House and Senate members. Insist on a bill that will reinstate the Equal Time law that was for years in effect in America. Then when these people on hate-radio and hate-TV spew out their violence-provoking diatribe, the other side must be represented with equal time in the immediate future. It won't interfere with free speech, but it will spread The Truth after all this insidious hate.- A Texan on blog"

Cowboy's comment:Here it is,..blaming talk radio. The reason there is little liberal talk show radio is because nobody will listen, therefore the radio station's revenue from advertising goes way down. Make no mistake about it, The Equal Time act is a radical infringement on the First Amendment. TEXAN - you must be transplanted from San Francisco. Go back home to your Momma, Nancy Pelosi, you idiot.

"This guy was mentally unstable, loves guns, listens to palin, and anti-establishment. He is a tea party member." - NOhl on blog

Cowboy's comment: NOhl, is you could read or if you pull the potatoes out of your ears, then you would learn that law enforcement found material written by Adolph Hitler and Karl Marx in the shooter's residence. Plus some sort of satanic worship altar in a tent! The shooter is a deranged lunatic. P.S. Reading Karl Marx makes him a Democrat,...P.S.2. you are a babbling fool. P.S.3. The Tea Party and the Conservative movement rejects criminal and violent acts. We advocate the ballot box. We have more than sufficient results from elections,....or did you sleep through November 2010?

Sunday, January 9, 2011

Pertains to All, Except Maybe Obama

Recently the newly seated 112th Congress decided to open this current session by reading, verbatim, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Interruptions from the Congressional gallery became apparent when it got to the section concerning citizenship requirements to be President, which is obviously still an issue with many in the Country who believe Obama does not meet this constitutional requirement.

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Letter of Admonishment to President Obama

Members of Congress issued a letter of correction to President Obama regarding his inaccurate statement of the national motto and omissions of God in speeches when quoting from American historical documents that referenced the Creator.

December 6, 2010

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write today in response to a speech given on November 10, 2010, at the University of Indonesia in Jakarta , Indonesia , in which you stated “But I believe that the history of both America and Indonesia should give us hope. It is a story written into our national mottos. In the United States , our motto is E pluribus unum -- out of many one … our nations show that hundreds of millions who hold different beliefs can be united in freedom under one flag.”

E pluribus unum is not our national motto. In 1956, Congress passed and President Eisenhower approved the law establishing ‘In God We Trust’ as the official national motto of the United States . This motto is also referenced in our national anthem and is engraved on our coins and currency.

Additionally, during three separate events thus fall, when quoting from the Declaration of Independence, you mentioned that we have inalienable rights, but consistently failed to mention the source of the rights. The Declaration of Independence definitively recognizes God, our Creator, as the source of our rights. Omitting the word ‘Creator’ once was a mistake; but twice establishes a pattern. In your speech in Indonesia , you mentioned being unified under one flag. The Pledge of Allegiance to our flag says that we are “one nation under God.” As President of the United States, you are our representative to the rest of the world. By misrepresenting things as foundational as the Declaration of Independence and our national motto, you are not only doing a disservice to the people you represent you are casting aside an integral part of American society.

John Adams said, “It is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.” If Adams was right, by making these kinds of statement to the rest of the world, you are removing one of the cornerstones of our secure freedom. If we pull the thread of religious conviction out of the marketplace of ideas, we unravel the tapestry of freedom that birthed America.

As members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, a bi-partisan group of 68 Members of the United States House of Representatives, we are dedicated to preserving America ’s religious heritage and protecting our religious liberty. We respectively request that you issue a correction to the speech you gave, as it does nit accurately reflect America and serves to undercut an important part of our history. We are willing to meet with you to discuss thus further if you would like. As President Ronald Reagan warned, “If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”

Signed by the following Legislators: J. Randy Forbes, VA; Mike McIntyre, NC; Paul Broun, GA; Steve King, IA; John Shadegg, AZ; Louie Gohmert, TX; Donald Manzullo, IL; John Boozman, AR; Joseph Pitts, PA; David Reichert, WA; Gregg Harper, MS; Jason Chaffetz, UT; Robert Aderholtz, AL; Jim Jordan, OH; Glenn Thompson, PA; Steve Austria, OH; Jeff Miller, FL; Mike Pence, IN; Cathy McMorris Rogers, WA; Scott Garrett, NJ; Joe WIlson, SC; Doug Lamborn, CO; John Kline, MN; Phil Roe, TN; Peter Roskam, IL; John Carter, TX; K. Michael Conway, TX; W. Todd Akin, MO; Zach Wamp, TN; Randy Neubebauer, TX; Todd Tiahrt, KS; Robert Wittman, VA; Vernon Ehlers, MI; Tom Price,GA; Spencer Bachus, AL; Roscoe Bartlett, MD; Mike Rogers, AL; Virginia Foxx, NC; Thaddeus McCotter, MI; Trent Franks, AZ; Phil Gingrey, GA; and, Michelle Bachmann, MN.

And we know that if they had a chance you could add the following names: John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Samuel Adams, James Monroe and a host of others, known otherwise as out Founding Fathers.

Thursday, January 6, 2011

THE Mexican Gun Shop

Did you know that it IS legal after all to buy and sells guns in Mexico? It's just that there is only one legal gun shop in Mexico (Mexico City actually) and it is operated by the Mexican Military.

Called officially the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales, customers can buy guns, after negotiating lengthy paperwork requirements. However, there are many guns that citizens cannot legally buy,.....only Mexican police and military can buy the most modern firearms. Which of course regulates citizens to being under gunned from corrupt law enforcement and military, not to mention the cartels with their massive numbers of personnel and firepower.

That's not always a bad thing as the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan really took to the Soviet Army using bolt action Short Magazine Lee Enfields.

The Director of THE Mexican Gun Shop, Lt Col Raul Manzano-Velez says the shop sells an average of 6,490 firearms each year, however that number is decreasing. He further stated that "only a tiny percentage, less than 1%, end up in the hands of criminals." And of course, this idiot validates President Felipe "It's All America's Fault" Calderon's statements that "90% of the over 93,000 weapons captured in the last four years from criminals and cartels came from the United States." But this of course is a giant lie. Both the Mexicans and our own Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (aka the famed BATFE) refuse to release the results of traces.

Support your Second Amendment rights, join the National Rifle Association.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011


The idea behind this post is to intrigue readers enough so they will do their own research into the Federal Reserve Banking System, aka The FED.

From Wikipedia: The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States . It was created in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, and was largely a response to a series of financial panics, particularly a severe panic in 1907. Over time, the roles and responsibilities of the Federal Reserve System have expanded and its structure has evolved. Events such as the Great Depression were major factors leading to changes in the system. Its duties today, according to official Federal Reserve documentation, are to conduct the nation's monetary policy, supervise and regulate banking institutions, maintain the stability of the financial system and provide financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions

Quotes from notable men concerning the Fed.

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependent on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." -- Rothschild Brothers of London , 1863

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" -- Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States " -- Sen. Barry Goldwater ( Rep. AZ )

"This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President (Wilson) signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized.... the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill." -- Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. 1913

"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created." -- Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. 1913

"The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board administers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money" -- Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., 1923

"The Federal Reserve bank buys government bonds without one penny..." -- Congressman Wright Patman, Congressional Record, Sept 30, 1941

"We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it". -- Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932 (Rep. PA)

"The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the International bankers -- Congressman Louis T. McFadden ( Rep. Pa )

"Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are the United States government's institutions. They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers" – Congressional Record 12595-12603 -- Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency (12 years) June 10, 1932

"I have never seen more Senators express discontent with their jobs....I think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices in doing something terrible and unforgivable to our wonderful country. Deep down in our heart, we know that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected." -- John Danforth (R-Mo)

"These 12 corporations together cover the whole country and monopolize and use for private gain every dollar of the public currency..." -- Mr. Crozier of Cincinnati , before Senate Banking and Currency Committee - 1913

"The [Federal Reserve Act] as it stands seems to me to open the way to a vast inflation of the currency... I do not like to think that any law can be passed that will make it possible to submerge the gold standard in a flood of irredeemable paper currency." -- Henry Cabot Lodge Sr., 1913

Monday, January 3, 2011

Charitable Giving

Have you heard about Arthur Brooks, from Syracuse University, who did a 10 year study on the charitable habits and spending of Democrats and Republicans? Apparently he went into the study with a pre-conceived notion that Democrats charitable giving would certainly eclipse what the Republicans give.

This study was repeated, albeit in an un-scientific manner by talking to people on the streets of New York by Fox News' John Stossell. His results were that the majority of the people believed the Republicans were stingy about charitable giving and that Democrats were the "kind hearted" people who would obviously give more to the needy. Oh you mean like Al Gore's $353 he gave to charity in 1998,......ha ha , be fair 'ole Fat Al had alot of expenses (cheeseburgers and fries), so I'm sure he would have gave more if he could.

In Arthur Brooks study, he concluded that Republicans were much more giving to charity than their Democratic brethren.

If the government would let us keep more of our own money , instead of re-distributing it to their causes, unions, ACORN, etc., then I believe charitable giving would supplant government services for many of the needy.

If you are looking for a good charity to support, you don't have to look any farther than the Children's Hunger Fund. This is the main charity I support not only because they provide support to children born into poverty, disease and early death and who cannot take care of themselves, as well as I am positive this Charity spends the money on the cause and not administrative garbage.

About Children's Hunger Fund

Children's Hunger Fund has distributed more than $875 million in food and other resources, serving the needs of more than 10 million children in 35 U.S. states and 72 countries worldwide. Since inception in 1991, more than 99 percent of CHF's revenue has been used in programs serving the needs of children. Children's Hunger Fund works to alleviate the suffering of children in impoverished regions across America and around the world. Through strategic partnerships in targeted communities, CHF works to improve the lives of poor children and their families holistically, meeting their physical, emotional, and spiritual needs.

CHF, a Christian 501(c)3 nonprofit organization, works to alleviate the suffering of children in impoverished regions across America and around the world. Through strategic partnerships in targeted communities, CHF works to improve the lives of poor children and their families holistically, meeting their physical, emotional, and spiritual needs.

CHF is well-known for program efficiency. Since 1991, Children's Hunger Fund has given an average of 99% of its revenue to programs serving children in need.

Children's Hunger Fund is committed to operating with financial integrity. Therefore, we provide full disclosure of our financial records with complete transparency.

CHF is well-known as one of America's most cost-effective charities. Since inception, more than 99% of all revenue has been used in programs serving the needs of children. CHF is consistently given the highest marks by Charity Navigator, Ministry Watch, and Forbes.

In fact, in 2009 Forbes Magazine gave CHF a 99% in Charitable Commitment; 100% in Fundraising Efficiency and 100% in Donor Dependency.

See it here at Forbes.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

Not Yours To Give

Not Yours To Give. Sent to me by a old Cowboy and very pertinent today as it was 180 or so years ago.

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 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 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?’

" ‘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 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."