If this doesn't convince you to vote for Ron Paul I don't know what will:) These are the kind of people that are opposed to him.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Friday, May 11, 2007
Federal Aid- Part 1: Davy Crockett
One story that is often told is of frontier Congressman Davy Crockett. The story below is taken from a pamplet put out by the Constituion Party called, "Not yours to Give!"
In the early 1800’s Congress was considering a bill to appropriate tax dollars for the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in support of this bill. It seemed that everyone in the House favored it. The Speaker of the House was just about to put the question to a vote, when Davy Crockett, famous frontiersman and then Congressman from Tennessee, rose to his feet. Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Sir, this is no debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks. There was silence on the floor of the House as Crockett took his seat. When the bill was put to a vote, instead of passing unanimously as had been expected, it received only a few votes. The next day a friend approached Crockett and asked why he spoken against a bill for such a worthy cause. In reply, Crockett related the following story:
Just a few years before, he had voted to spend $20,000.00 of public money to help the victims of a terrible fire in Georgetown. When the legislative session was over, Crockett made a trip back home to do some campaigning for his re-election. In his travels he encountered one of his constituents, a man by the name of Horatio Bunce. Mr. Bunce bluntly informed Crockett, I voted for you the last time. I shall not vote for you again. Crockett, feeling he had served his constituents well, was stunned. He inquired as to what he had done to so offend Mr. Bunce. Bunce replied, 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. The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. 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 $20,000.00 to some sufferers by a fire. Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away public money in charity? 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. 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. You have violated the Constitution in what I consider to be 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 could not answer him, said Crockett. I was so fully convinced that he was right. I said to him, Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to under-stand the Constitution. If you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot. After finishing the story, Crockett said, Now sir, 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 weeks pay? There are in that House many very wealthy men, men who think nothing of spending a weeks pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of these same men made beautiful speeches upon the debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased, 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.
In the early 1800’s Congress was considering a bill to appropriate tax dollars for the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in support of this bill. It seemed that everyone in the House favored it. The Speaker of the House was just about to put the question to a vote, when Davy Crockett, famous frontiersman and then Congressman from Tennessee, rose to his feet. Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Sir, this is no debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks. There was silence on the floor of the House as Crockett took his seat. When the bill was put to a vote, instead of passing unanimously as had been expected, it received only a few votes. The next day a friend approached Crockett and asked why he spoken against a bill for such a worthy cause. In reply, Crockett related the following story:
Just a few years before, he had voted to spend $20,000.00 of public money to help the victims of a terrible fire in Georgetown. When the legislative session was over, Crockett made a trip back home to do some campaigning for his re-election. In his travels he encountered one of his constituents, a man by the name of Horatio Bunce. Mr. Bunce bluntly informed Crockett, I voted for you the last time. I shall not vote for you again. Crockett, feeling he had served his constituents well, was stunned. He inquired as to what he had done to so offend Mr. Bunce. Bunce replied, 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. The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. 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 $20,000.00 to some sufferers by a fire. Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away public money in charity? 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. 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. You have violated the Constitution in what I consider to be 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 could not answer him, said Crockett. I was so fully convinced that he was right. I said to him, Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to under-stand the Constitution. If you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot. After finishing the story, Crockett said, Now sir, 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 weeks pay? There are in that House many very wealthy men, men who think nothing of spending a weeks pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of these same men made beautiful speeches upon the debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased, 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.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Federal Aid? Or Federal Threat?
Many of you have probably heard of the Greensburg Tornado. Just a few days ago a tornado ripped through this small Kansas town and leveled it completely. Of the 1,500 residents at least ten were killed and many others wounded. The causalities are only expected to rise. It is estimated that the town sustained between 95-100% damage. It is truly a disaster area.
As I was reading the Wichita Eagle today I saw an article by Pat Roberts, the junior Republican senator from Kansas. Here is a quote from that article:
“After touring the devastation, I went east to visit with the victims of the killer tornado at shelters in Haviland, 10 miles away. We spent an hour sharing shock, grief and prayer. The last person I visited with, an elderly gentleman who only had the clothes on his back, sat staring into nothingness, sitting on a cot. He simply looked at me and said, “Senator, thanks for coming; I just don’t know how I will get my life and home back.” That is when I decided we had to cut the red tape that usually is involved in getting a federal disaster declaration and critical assistance to local officials and to homeless residents.”
He goes on to tell of calling the President and receiving the federal disaster aid he and the other Kansas representatives had requested. Most people, including many of my readers probably applaud his decision and concern. It’s also true that most people, including many of my readers are going to be upset and confused when I say this: I could not disagree with that decision more. Allow me to explain.
There are a number of things that keep me from supporting this decision, the lack of Constitutional authorization, the support of government intervention, and the ineffectiveness of federal aid are all things that could be discussed. While most people today support the use of federal funds in disaster situations there is a strong historical precedent against government intervention. Over the next couple of posts I want to look at some historical and Constitutional arguments against the administration of Federal aid and welfare.
As I was reading the Wichita Eagle today I saw an article by Pat Roberts, the junior Republican senator from Kansas. Here is a quote from that article:
“After touring the devastation, I went east to visit with the victims of the killer tornado at shelters in Haviland, 10 miles away. We spent an hour sharing shock, grief and prayer. The last person I visited with, an elderly gentleman who only had the clothes on his back, sat staring into nothingness, sitting on a cot. He simply looked at me and said, “Senator, thanks for coming; I just don’t know how I will get my life and home back.” That is when I decided we had to cut the red tape that usually is involved in getting a federal disaster declaration and critical assistance to local officials and to homeless residents.”
He goes on to tell of calling the President and receiving the federal disaster aid he and the other Kansas representatives had requested. Most people, including many of my readers probably applaud his decision and concern. It’s also true that most people, including many of my readers are going to be upset and confused when I say this: I could not disagree with that decision more. Allow me to explain.
There are a number of things that keep me from supporting this decision, the lack of Constitutional authorization, the support of government intervention, and the ineffectiveness of federal aid are all things that could be discussed. While most people today support the use of federal funds in disaster situations there is a strong historical precedent against government intervention. Over the next couple of posts I want to look at some historical and Constitutional arguments against the administration of Federal aid and welfare.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Press Release
Here is a press release I received from Ron Paul's campaign:
May 08, 2007
Press Release
Ron Paul Builds Momentum
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 8, 2007
ARLINGTON, VA – Congressman Ron Paul's support has soared since the first Republican presidential debate. Conservative commentator John McLaughlin, host of “The McLaughlin Group," cited Ron Paul as having given "the best performance of the debate." In fact, the Paul campaign's apparent strength has many other pundits scrambling to explain it. Paul campaign officials offer the following examples of the candidate's rising success.
Since the debate on May 3, Ron Paul:
* Handily won two post-debate polls posted by event sponsor MSNBC
* Placed a close third (18%) in a post-debate poll on the conservative Drudge Report
* Won an ABCNews.com online debate poll with 84%
* Won a C-SPAN online GOP candidate poll with 69%
* Became the third most-mentioned person in the blogosphere, beating out Paris Hilton, according to the reputable Technorati.com
* Produced a YouTube.com video that was ranked the 8th most popular overall video, and the most-viewed political video
* Was featured, by popular demand, on the front of Digg.com
* Generated so many bulletin posts on MySpace.com that the site owner News Corp. blocked all additional posts about Dr. Paul
* Became a "most searched" term on Google and Yahoo!
* Saw a quadrupling of daily visitors to RonPaul2008.com
"These figures speak for themselves," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Ron Paul has quickly become a strong contender for the GOP nomination because of his powerful message of freedom and limited government."
May 08, 2007
Press Release
Ron Paul Builds Momentum
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 8, 2007
ARLINGTON, VA – Congressman Ron Paul's support has soared since the first Republican presidential debate. Conservative commentator John McLaughlin, host of “The McLaughlin Group," cited Ron Paul as having given "the best performance of the debate." In fact, the Paul campaign's apparent strength has many other pundits scrambling to explain it. Paul campaign officials offer the following examples of the candidate's rising success.
Since the debate on May 3, Ron Paul:
* Handily won two post-debate polls posted by event sponsor MSNBC
* Placed a close third (18%) in a post-debate poll on the conservative Drudge Report
* Won an ABCNews.com online debate poll with 84%
* Won a C-SPAN online GOP candidate poll with 69%
* Became the third most-mentioned person in the blogosphere, beating out Paris Hilton, according to the reputable Technorati.com
* Produced a YouTube.com video that was ranked the 8th most popular overall video, and the most-viewed political video
* Was featured, by popular demand, on the front of Digg.com
* Generated so many bulletin posts on MySpace.com that the site owner News Corp. blocked all additional posts about Dr. Paul
* Became a "most searched" term on Google and Yahoo!
* Saw a quadrupling of daily visitors to RonPaul2008.com
"These figures speak for themselves," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Ron Paul has quickly become a strong contender for the GOP nomination because of his powerful message of freedom and limited government."
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Saturday, April 14, 2007
The Openess of Government
As many of you know I recently applied to be a Congressional Page in Washinton D.C. I found out about the program less than a week before the deadline and had to scramble to meet the requirments. I got a letter today saying that I had been nominated to be a Page! I still have to be chosen by the House Majority leader but with a little effort I am being considered to go serve in Washington for three weeks!
While this news was, (for me) very exciting. It also struck home a more important point. The openess of our Republic. In most cases a little bit of effort can put you in contact, or face to face, with some incrediably powerful people. Governers, congressmen, even the president. I frequently corraspond with almost all of my elected leaders, most of whom are open and respond back within a few weeks. God has given us amazing opportunities to speak the truth to powerful people. Yet more often than not we squander that opportunity by our apathy. Most Christians are concerned about the course our nation is headed down. Yet when they hear news of an important vote they almost never contact their leaders to let then know they think! When some horrible law has been enacted, we seldom reprimand those who supported it, or thank those that opposed. I would challenge each and every one of us to:
1) Know who our leaders are.
2) Keep them in our prayers.
3) And let them know our opinions on things.
How many of you know who your representatives in the State capital are? Can you name the city council? How much do you know about the governer? It can be a daunting task to learn this information and then to keep up with all the devolpments. Take things slowely you don't have to learn this all at once. With a little bit of effort and time we can begin to effect tremendous change in our commnities, our States, and our Nation.
While this news was, (for me) very exciting. It also struck home a more important point. The openess of our Republic. In most cases a little bit of effort can put you in contact, or face to face, with some incrediably powerful people. Governers, congressmen, even the president. I frequently corraspond with almost all of my elected leaders, most of whom are open and respond back within a few weeks. God has given us amazing opportunities to speak the truth to powerful people. Yet more often than not we squander that opportunity by our apathy. Most Christians are concerned about the course our nation is headed down. Yet when they hear news of an important vote they almost never contact their leaders to let then know they think! When some horrible law has been enacted, we seldom reprimand those who supported it, or thank those that opposed. I would challenge each and every one of us to:
1) Know who our leaders are.
2) Keep them in our prayers.
3) And let them know our opinions on things.
How many of you know who your representatives in the State capital are? Can you name the city council? How much do you know about the governer? It can be a daunting task to learn this information and then to keep up with all the devolpments. Take things slowely you don't have to learn this all at once. With a little bit of effort and time we can begin to effect tremendous change in our commnities, our States, and our Nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
