 | ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 6 March 2001 | Vol. II #34 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 6 March 2001 | Vol. II #34 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
By Chuck Baldwin
When you awoke Monday morning, did you say a word of thanks for those 186 brave men who died at the Alamo? It was on March 5th in 1836 that men like Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and Will Travis chose to fight and die at that little mission fort, rather than leave their posts. As you meditate on the bravery and commitment of those men, try to imagine a congressman and a group of citizen volunteers being willing to emulate that act of self-sacrifice today. It's tough to visualize, isn't it?
By today's standards, the men who died at the Alamo must seem rather foolish. After all, they had no chance of winning - none! And isn't winning all that counts? That's what good Republicans have been telling us for the past year. That's why Trent Lott and the Senate leadership decided to let Bill Clinton stay in office. That's why millions of Christian conservatives voted for G.W. Bush instead of Alan Keyes in the Republican primaries. And that's why they ignored Pat Buchanan and Howard Phillips in the general election.
This win-at-all-costs philosophy is one reason the Republican Party, and conservatives in general, have been castrated. They have sold their souls (and their children's futures) to the concept that winning is all that matters. But that was not the spirit of the men at the Alamo; neither was it the spirit of the men at Lexington and Concord.
Winning has never been man's duty. Picking winners and losers is the domain of God - and God's alone. Man has but one duty: to be faithful to the truth. Nothing more. Nothing less.
When those 186 men at the Alamo decided to step across that line in the sand, they knew they were going to die. A force of over 4,000 seasoned soldiers surrounded them, and no help was coming. They knew they were going to die. Yet, to a man, they chose to stay on those ramparts.
One of those men was Tennessee Congressman, David Crockett. Some were farmers. Others were ranchers. James Bowie was a wealthy landowner. Ministers, too, were numbered among that gallant group. They came from various backgrounds and trades. But all of them believed that a man's duty was simply to do right and let God decide the rest. They chose to do right - and they died doing it.
I pray that one day my conservative brethren will come to understand that our only duty is to stand for truth and right. In standing for right, some prevail; others don't. The eternal rewards are the same for each.
I need to add that it is devotion to duty that often prompts Heaven's assistance. On the other hand, to cling to this humanistic "must win" attitude is to cling to a rope of sand. And for those who continue to embrace the damnable belief that "principle without power is useless," I would only respond by saying, power without principle is dangerous.
And I would add one more thing: it was the spirit of Crockett's champions, not the spirit of Lott's Lilliputians, that made America the greatest nation on earth. And only the same uncompromising, fearless spirit will turn our faltering country around. Does anyone see Crockett's shadow on the horizon?
[ http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com ]
"Over the past half century, far too many judges -- including justices of the Supreme Court -- have 'interpreted' laws to mean the direct opposite of what the written words of those laws plainly said. ...It is a question whether courts of law become arenas for arbitrary exercises of power -- the very antithesis of law. The people of this country have long had differing opinions on quotas, abortion, pornography and many other controversial issues. That is why we have elections at all levels of government and differing laws from one state or locality to another. But those who think themselves so far above ordinary people that they ought to impose their own opinions on the unwashed masses have supported judges who turn these political questions into constitutional issues without any basis in the constitution. At the heart of the constitution is a separation of powers, which limits each branch of government and allows other branches of government to stop it from over-stepping its bounds. Without that, we are at the mercy of whoever happens to be the most ruthless in grabbing power." --Thomas Sowell
"The fundamental principle is this: No matter how worthwhile an end may be, if there is no constitutional authority to pursue it, then the federal government must step aside and leave the matter to the states or to private parties. The president and Congress can proceed only from constitutional authority, not from good intentions alone. If Congress thinks it necessary to expand its powers, the Framers crafted an amendment process for that purpose. But too often, rather than follow that process, Congress has disregarded the limits set by the Constitution and gutted our frontline defense against overweening federal government." --Robert A. Levy
"With the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr., it has always been difficult to know when his preaching ends and his business and political operations begin. Undoubtedly, one reason is that in both instances Mr. Jackson always has his hand out, palm up. It has always been this way for Mr. Jackson, who told the Federal Election Commission that he raised more than a quarter-million dollars for his 1984 presidential campaign from "collection masses" at churches without raising even a peep from the separation-of-church-and-state crowd.
"Indeed, by permitting his PUSH (People United to Serve Humanity) organizations to accept a $10,000 payment from Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi in 1979, Mr. Jackson long ago demonstrated that he isn't particularly concerned about the source of the money, as long as it is green. Indeed, the liberal media have essentially given Mr. Jackson a pass over the numerous financial scandals that have afflicted his organizations, while many conservatives have been too polite to address these issues in public."
[ Washington Times ]
Sen. Hillary Clinton is losing fans by the day on Capitol Hill due to her performance at last Tuesday's Bush address to Congress.
According to congressional reporters, Senator Clinton pushed fragile Republican Strom Thurmond out of the way in order to get to the NBC New York affiliate's camera crew. "Thurmond stumbled and nearly fell down, but Sen. Ted Kennedy grabbed hold of him," says one of the reporter witnesses.
Clinton has also further angered her own leadership. Her staff presented Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle with a request that he approve two additional positions for her office at salaries of $85,000 or more. "She wants to hire a permanent staff pollster and media adviser," says a source in the minority leader's office. "She explained that they would be available to all of her Democratic colleagues, but they would work out of her offices."
The so-called "office expenses" indicate how naive Clinton is about real-world politics. It would be next to impossible to hire a pollster at a salary of $85,000, let alone cover the costs of polling out of a Senate office. "She's thinking like a first lady, and not a freshman senator," says the Daschle aide. "But no one has the nerve to tell her where to get off."
[ Washington Prowler ]
***CARA is Back
Far from satisfied with last year's turn of events which saw their beloved pork-barrel behemoth shredded to resemble little more than a Vienna sausage, Reps. Don Young (R-AK), John Dingel (D-MI) and "Slick Billy" Tauzin (R-LA) are already drumming up renewed support for the land-grabbing, federal trust fund known as the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA).
After a long, hard battle last year, property rights advocates prevailed against CARA by passing a compromise bill that was far less destructive than CARA itself. Rep. Young's original version of CARA called for a $45 billion dollar, 15-year trust fund ($3 billion dollars, guaranteed every year for 15 years)-much of which would be used to fund federal land grabs. The "CARA Lite" bill, which was passed last year, calls for $12 billion over six years, and NO trust fund (the $2 billion would have to pass the appropriations process each year). While much smaller, "CARA Lite" is still an inexcusable increase in funding for federal land grabs.
Now, barely one month into Bush's presidency, Reps. Young and Dingel have written a letter to President Bush, urging him to "move our nation's conservation legacy forward." Rep. Young said "CARA would be an excellent opportunity to pass a significant bipartisan bill during the first 100 days of the new Bush administration." Young, Dingel and Tauzin want their $45 billion barrel of pork. "CARA Lite" only whetted their appetites.
Property rights advocates must remain vigilant. A likely tug-o-war over Bush's land policy directives will take place over the next four years. The Bush administration must know that patriotic Americans will not tolerate CARA! NO CARA LAND GRAB!
**Action to Take**
1. Call the White House and let President Bush know that American citizens will not stand for the CARA land grab. White House phone number: (202) 456-1414 Fax: (202) 456-2461.
[American Policy Center ]
***Republicans to do Nothing About Monuments-Unless Property Rights Advocates Act Quickly!
For all those who thought that the election of President Bush was the solution to America's property rights problems: Think again.
It appears that the Bush administration is unwilling to do the right thing by overturning Clinton's eleventh hour national monument designations, which shut Americans out of millions of acres of public land and will destroy local industries and communities. Interior Secretary, Gale Norton, has declared that the Bush administration will not seek to overturn ANY of Clinton's monument designations. Instead, Norton said that the Interior Department and Congress could work with local officials and property owners out West to address their concerns. Helping to pour salt in the wounds, Chairman of the Resources Committee, Rep. James Hanson (R-UT) said: "No one is going to see a wholesale rolling back of these monuments, but we will help Members draft legislation to redraw boundaries or alter management plans." In other words: Clinton uses his pen to steal the land and Bush uses his administration to make it all seem routine.
Surely this is a great comfort to the miners who have been laid off and the property owners who must sell their land.
Worse still, there are many organizations who fancy themselves a part of the "property rights movement" who are also throwing in the towel on the Clinton monuments.
The bottom line is: CONGRESS HAS THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO OVERTURN THESE MONUMENTS. And given the dictatorial fashion in which the monuments were created, Congress has the OBLIGATION to overturn these monuments.
If you agree that it is imperative that Congress do something, read the "Action to Take" below.
If you disagree, remain silent with the millions of other Americans who have lost their land rights because they didn't think it could happen to them.
**Action to Take**
1. Call Chairman of the House Resources Committee, Rep. James Hanson, and urge him to draft legislation to roll back the Clinton monuments. Rep. Hanson: Phone (202) 225-0453 Fax (202) 225-5857.
2. Call your Congressman and urge him to draft legislation to roll back the Clinton monuments. Capitol Hill Switchboard: (202) 225-3121.
[American Policy Center ]
"Government already has title to more than 40 percent of the nation's land area -- and is grabbing more each day.
Government should be actively working to get land into private hands, not taking it away from private landowners. If America is to remain the land of the free, the land must be owned by free people, who are free to use their property for their own benefit. If the land, and its resources continue to move from private ownership, into the hands of government, to be protected from use by the people who really own it -- how can any semblance of freedom survive?
The transformation has occurred because elected officials -- at every level of government - have allowed non-elected bureaucrats to usurp their policy-making function. The responsibility, however, lies with private individuals who have let their elected officials acquiesce to the non-elected bureaucrats. If the transformation is to be halted, and reversed, it will be the result of ordinary citizens who get informed, involved, and in-the-face of their elected officials.
Once the land and its resources are locked away behind government title, it will be far more difficult for our children to get it back. This transformation can be stopped, and reversed, but it will take the best efforts of every American who wants their children to live in a land of freedom, rather than in a society managed by government." --Henry Lamb
-- Almost 90 Reps. sign Hostettler letter
(Monday, March 5, 2001) -- Thanks to your very hard efforts, 89 Representatives joined Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) in petitioningHUD Secretary Mel Martinez to eradicate part of Bill Clinton's anti-gun legacy.
The Department of HUD is spearheading the Communities for Safer Guns Coalition, a group that is helping cities and localities all around the country in bringing lawsuits against gun makers. Grassroots pressure encouraged 89 other Representatives to sign onto the Hostettler letter which asks Secretary Martinez to pull the plug on the anti-gun coalition.
Your phone calls were so incessant that a few Congressional offices even called GOA headquarters, as well as Hostettler's office, to ask that we "call off the dogs." Their beleaguered cry was to please make the phone calls stop.
Well, now that the deadline for jumping on the letter has passed, you guys merit a well-deserved pat on the back. Following is the list of those who signed onto the letter -- some of them kicking and screaming the entire way:
Akin (MO), Green (TX), Pence (IN), Baker (LA), Hall (TX), Peterson (MN), Bartlett (MD), Hansen (UT), Petri (WI), Brady (TX), Hart (PA), Phelps (IL), Brown (SC), Hastings (WA), Pombo (CA), Burr (NC), Hayes (NC), Putnam (FL), Buyer (IN), Hayworth (AZ), Rehberg (MT), Callahan (AL), Hilleary (TN), Reynolds (NY), Calvert (CA), Hoekstra (MI), Riley (AL), Camp (MI), Hostettler (IN), Rohrabacher (CA), Cannon (UT), Hulshof (MO), Ryan (WI), Cantor (VA), Hutchinson (AR), Ryun (KS), Chambliss (GA), Istook (OK), Sandlin (TX), Coble (NC), Jenkins (TN), Schaffer (CO), Combest (TX), Johnson, S. (TX), Sessions (TX), Cooksey (LA), Johnson, T. (IL), Shimkus (IL), Cubin (WY), Largent (OK), Shows (MS), Cunningham (CA), Lewis (KY), Simpson (ID), Deal (GA), Linder (GA), Skeen (NM), DeFazio (OR), Manzullo (IL), Stenholm (TX), DeMint (SC), McCrery (LA), Strictland (OH), Doolittle (CA), Miller (CA), Stump (AZ), Duncan (TN), Moran (KS), Taylor (NC), Ehrlich (MD), Nethercutt (WA), Thornberry (TX), English (PA), Ney (OH), Tiahrt (KS), Everett (AL), Norwood (GA), Traficant (OH), Flake (AZ), Ose (CA), Vitter (LA), Gibbons (NV), Otter (ID), Weldon (PA), Goode (VA), Oxley (OH), Whitfield (KY), Goodlatte (VA), Paul (TX), Wicker (MS)
[ Gun Owners of America ]
A Minnesota high school officially sanctions "gay pride," but recently banned a solitary expression of "straight pride."
Elliott Chambers is 16, a Christian, and the owner of a sweatshirt that reads "Straight Pride" on the front with a logo of a boy and girl holding hands on the back. He tried to wear it at his school recently, which mandates "gay pride" stickers and posters be placed on walls and doors designating so-called "safe zones" for homosexual students.
"They have all this gay-pride stuff, and I thought it would be cool if we had a straight pride shirt for a change," Chambers said. "It was just to get people thinking."
It only succeeded in getting some of his classmates thinking of going to the principal's office, which is where Elliott ended up.
"(The principal) said that I couldn't wear it," Chambers said. "I guess his cover was that it would incite violence."
Lana Chambers, Elliott's mom, was livid when she found out about the principal's action.
"I said, 'You're telling me that he cannot wear this shirt because it's offensive to them (homosexuals)? Well, those signs are offensive to him! And to me! And I'm a taxpayer!' " Lana Chambers said.
Attorney Frank Manion, with the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), said the principal's argument that banning the shirt as a matter of school safety is a "smokescreen." "It's obviously discriminatory and something that the school should not be allowed to get away with," Manion said.
"We've got to beware of the aims and the goals of, really, the radical homosexual-rights movement. "
Elliott had a new shirt made to wear after his sweatshirt was banned. It simply reads, "Help, I'm being repressed."
The homepage and archives for The Conservative Newsletter are located on the WWW at http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn/
This newsletter is sent by subscription only. If you do not wish to be on the mailing list, please let us know and you will be removed immediately. To be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this newsletter with the word REMOVE in the body of your reply. You may also send your request to tcn@wilderness-cry.net .
Thank you.
