PDA

View Full Version : A Humbling Lesson:




G-khan
08-04-2007, 08:15 AM
G-khan: This is one of my favorite letters for understanding what government should be and what the Constitution stands for.. I love this and I hope you will love it as well!
_______________________
A Humbling Lesson:

Congressman Davy Crockett Learns About Limited Government


In the following, excerpted from the book The Life of Colonel David Crockett (1884) compiled by Edward S. Ellis, the famous American frontiersman, war hero, and congressman from Tennessee relates how he learned -- from one of his own backwoods constituents -- the vital importance of heeding the Constitution and the dangers of disregarding its restraints. Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support, rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

"Mr. Speaker -- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Like many other young men, and old ones too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:

"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."

He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:

"Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."

I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made 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, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.

"The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.

"So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: 'Don't be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted.' He replied:

"'I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.'

"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and --'

"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

"This was a sockdolager .... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

"'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in 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 here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'

"'Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with.'

"'Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?'

"Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

"'Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

"'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'"

"I have given you," continued Crockett, "an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:

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

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go 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-by. I must know your name.'

"'My name is Bunce.'

"'Not Horatio Bunce?'

"'Yes.'

"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.'

"We shook hands and parted.

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

"I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him -- no, that is not the word -- I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the word 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 as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"'And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"'It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

"He came upon the stand and said:

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

"He went down, and there went up from 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. I have had several thousand copies of it printed, and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many' very wealthy men -- men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased -- a debt which could not be paid by money -- 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."



Source: September 20, 1993 issue of The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)

http://www.trimonline.org/congress/a...s/crockett. htm (http://www.trimonline.org/congress/articles/crockett.htm)

Sean
08-04-2007, 09:06 AM
Very nice. I have read parts of this before.

LibertyBelle
08-04-2007, 09:13 AM
Glad you posted this, I saved it to a file. Good letter to share with people who seem to not understand what the role of a gov't should be. Really reveals the hypocrisy of many government servants who would take our money and distribute it for charitable reasons, but wouldn't fork over any money of their own.

Thanks for posting this. :cool:

tsopranos
08-04-2007, 09:22 AM
I could list a bunch of great articles/books that had an impact on me.

Check this one out for now...

To Our Politicians From a Spiritual Working Stiff

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Frankly, I still have difficulty with the labels, conservative and liberal. Those who know me have never been able to pigeonhole me. I relate to Kierkegaard's observation: "Once you label me, you negate me." In truth, I am a working stiff.

I grew up on the east side of Detroit and spent several years in foster homes. I had a father who spent some time in prison, abused alcohol and five wives, and died of cirrhosis of the liver at age 49, never having known his three boys, after walking out on my mother.

I attended the Detroit public schools, entered the Navy at 18, spent four years on board ships and overseas. I worked my way through three degree programs as a stock boy and cashier at a large supermarket chain, graduating with a Ph.D. in Educational Counseling. I have been a schoolteacher, counselor, and college professor. As of this date, I work as a lecturer and writer, also producing video and audiotape programs on motivation, spirituality, and higher consciousness.

I have worked all my life, paid my taxes, supported my family, and continue to "chop wood and carry water," while being totally perplexed by what I hear coming out of the mouths of our politicians. As a working stiff who has earned enough to be in that top 1 percent income bracket, here is what I would like you, the politicians, to hear as you go about the business of government. These are views shared by most of the people I speak to every day, in all income brackets.

YOU ARE NOT OUR LEADERS.

No one that I know goes to sleep at night saying, "My leaders are in Washington, D.C." I fume when you refer to yourselves as our leaders. You may pass laws while sitting in committees and having Rose Garden ceremonies, but the laws come after the real leadership has been implemented.

No politician was responsible for leading us in the struggle for civil rights. Rosa Parks was a leader. Those who marched and ignored the racist laws passed by lawmakers were the leaders of the civil rights movement.

Who were the leaders of the Renaissance? The office holders? The politicians? No! The leaders were those who brought the world a new consciousness through their writing, art, music, and through challenging the entrenched ideologies of the office holders. These were the leaders.

When I hear you refer to yourselves as our leaders, I am always amused by such arrogance. We go to work and send up to 50 percent of our earnings to you. You use our earnings to make yourselves more privileged than we are, with unlimited medical care, overly generous retirement guarantees, and perks galore! All that you really do is write the rules using our funds to do so. This might be hard to accept, but try it on for size. We are not sheep who need to be led. We need servants who care. We are perfectly capable of leading ourselves; in fact, we do it every day.

YOU DO NOT CREATE JOBS.

I have written 20 books, produced hundred of tapes, and given several thousand lectures over the past 25 years. When I sit down and create a book, I send it to an editor who I pay to edit the manuscript. The way I see it, I just created a job. My editor receives payment, sends in her taxes, and now two are working. The editing process involves a computer. A third job is created. The publisher copy-edits the manuscript, and a fourth job is created. This process continues through many levels, with job after job being created all because I decided to write a book. The printers, inspectors, typesetters, delivery people, booksellers, accountants, stock boys, and cashiers all have jobs that were created because working stiffs have the ingenuity, gumption, and desire to create and produce.

The woman who loves flowers and decides to open a floral shop creates jobs. Without her desire and sweat, we wouldn't need floral coolers, delivery trucks, or growers. Nor would we need people to grow food to feed those workers or design garments to clothe them. The money you use to fund job-producing legislation originates from those who produce. It is really quite simple. Politicians do not create jobs.

As I see it, through the eyes of a working stiff, politicians can pass laws that will ultimately determine whether anyone finds being productive worth the effort any longer. If you decide to punish me with tax rules, over-regulate me, or constantly make my life miserable with forms, rules, and regulations, I may decide that writing another book is no longer worth the effort. If I decide that, and you multiply me by the millions of us who produce wealth and jobs, you will see that you do not produce jobs or wealth with our policies.

You print money. You regulate. You pass laws. But we produce jobs. We create wealth by working and producing, not by sitting in committees and talking up our self-importance.

ACT ON THE BASIS OF WHAT IS MORAL AND FAIR, NOT ON HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AFFECTED.

I heard over and over in the election debate that the inheritance tax should remain because only 2 percent of the population is affected by this tax. I have paid all of the taxes I owe to my government. What is left is mine to do with as I please. My death ought not trigger another tax on my remaining savings that have been already taxed. It does not matter if the tax affects one person or a million people. It is simply wrong. When our ancestors moved to abolish slavery they didn't say, "Only 2 percent of the populations is enslaved, so let's keep this practice lawful." They finally realized that slavery was morally wrong.

Let those who aspire to greater abundance in their lives do so knowing that politicians are not going to confiscate it at the moment of their death. Do what's right and what's moral, even when it affects only a small percentage of the population.

STOP MIXING PERCENTAGES AND DOLLAR AMOUNTS AS A RATIONALE FOR YOUR PHILOSOPHY.

If there is a surplus in tax revenues, it is an overpayment and belongs to those who sent it in. It ought to be returned in the same lawful proportion that it went in.

If I paid one million dollars in taxes, it is not so outrageous that I should have returned to me a higher dollar amount than someone who sent in $2,000 in taxes. To say that the wealthy will receive $18,000 each while the poor will only get an $1,800 tax cut is a spurious argument. If you paid no tax, you don't get a tax cut. You can't cut zero and get something back. If you paid $200,000 in taxes and you get a $40,000 refund, that's a 20 percent tax cut. If you paid $500,000 in taxes and you get back $20,000, that is only a 4 percent tax cut.

It stands to reason that if you are going to ask the top 10 percent of income earners to foot over 50 percent of the tax bills, then when it comes time to cut the taxes and return the surpluses, it ought to go back to the taxpayers in the same proportion. Similarly, if the bottom 40 percent of wage earners pay no taxes, then they get no refund. It may not appeal to most voters, but it makes sense to this working stiff who has been in all of those tax brackets at one time or another in his life.

WE DON'T NEED YOU TO FIGHT FOR US.

"I'll fight for you" seems to be the mantra of the modern politician. Just who are you fighting anyway? Aren't you all there in Washington to serve us? Don't you realize that fighting weakens you and rarely accomplishes anything?

I would like for you to work for me, not fight. Tell me what you are for, rather than what you oppose. I don't need to see any more debates. You are not running against anyone. You have no opponents. The person who is on the ballot with you is not someone you need to fight. Just tell me what you support and how you intend to make it happen, and let the other candidates do the same. I don't need you to fight. I need you to state your vision clearly and commit to bringing it about.

In 1967, Mother Teresa was asked to march against the war in Vietnam, and she refused, saying, "I won't march against anything. But when you have a march for peace, I'll be there." Let this spirit infuse your intentions.

*YOU DON'T EMPOWER US. WE ARE ALREADY POWERFUL.

My most disconcerting moments in the election season were hearing, "We're for the people, they're for the powerful," and then seeing this slogan as a USA Today headline the next day. It became a mantra for the last six weeks of the campaign.

Inherent in such a phrase is the idea that the people are not powerful, only those who are well off are empowered. Generation after generation of people in America have come to believe this line of thinking: "You have no power, but we, your leaders in Washington, will do it for you." It is just this kind of thinking that leads people to assume they are powerless to advance, to create their own greatness, to attract abundance and health into their lives, to transcend the ordinary levels of disempowerment.

I want to hear you say, "You are powerful; you are connected to the divine, and with God you can accomplish anything you make up your mind to do. If you see others who appear to be more powerful than you, then associate with them and emulate their strengths. Create a powerful vision for yourself. Don't find fault with those who have elevated themselves. Learn from them, find your own serenity and grace, and know that you are powerful. I'll support such a vision in all legislation. Keep your hopes high."

In Wisdom of the Ages, I wrote an essay based upon Michelangelo's observation: "The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." I want to hear you speak of high hopes, of the power of our spirit, a spirit that knows no favorites and is in each and every one of us.

DON'T GIVE YOURSELF WHAT YOU DENY TO THOSE WHO PAY FOR WHAT YOU HAVE!

If we send a portion of our income to you, don't use that money to vote yourself benefits that we are denied. If you get universal medical coverage paid for by those of us who created wealth, then be sure to grant it by law to all of us. If you get to retire with 90 percent of your paycheck, then be sure that we who pay for it get the same perk.

Be ever mindful of your role. You have elected to be a servant of the people. The people own the house. They built it. But they can't run it every day nor can they protect it, and build roads leading up to it. The people can't educate the children and regulate the economy because they are too busy working. So they hire servants to handle these duties, and they pay those servants to protect, regulate, and handle the affairs of housekeeping. But the house is still owned by the people. The servants don't get to make demands. The people do. The servants don't own the funds they receive for protecting, regulating, and delegating. The people do. It's our house. We the powerful working stiffs of America own it.

We lead ourselves every day, and if you want to speak to us, do it from your heart, without a Teleprompter or a spin doctor at your side. We are honest, hardworking, and straightforward. We are generous and kind to those in need. We don't need to be coddled or lied to. We can smell insincerity and BS a mile away. We pay the freight and keep it moving across America every day. Not because you are leading us. We are not following you or anyone else.

There is a spirit in all of us. A spirit that urges us upward to a greater connection to that which is just, moral, and honest. We expect no less from those who have chosen to serve.

- Wayne Dyer

Wayne Dyer's bio (http://www.drwaynedyer.com/), if you're interested in who the man is.

Dustancostine
08-04-2007, 09:30 AM
Wow!!!

Brad Zink
08-04-2007, 09:38 AM
A tremendous post. It makes me want to redouble my efforts for Dr. Paul.

G-khan
08-04-2007, 11:33 AM
A tremendous post. It makes me want to redouble my efforts for Dr. Paul.

Yes Dr. Paul reminds me of this story and what the "Limited role of government should be" as laid out in our constitution.

If you start using the peoples money for charity how do you decide who gets it? Who deserves or needs it most? It also makes it possible to buy votes..

I just love this as it makes such simple sense that government should not be in the business of charity and that it is best left up to the people to give it if they want through churches and other organizations or personally.

We now give away a lot more money than we have and are bankrupt!

jj111
08-04-2007, 11:39 AM
What is the URL for the Wayne Dyer quote?

tsopranos
08-04-2007, 11:55 AM
What is the URL for the Wayne Dyer quote?

He actually took it down from his site when he revamped it jj. I guess he didn't want to leave his political beliefs out there when he's really a self-help guru of sorts...probably thought it could hurt his potential audience, who knows.

I still have the text because I blogged about it on my myspace page. My wife was big into Wayne Dyer way back when.
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=59420763&blogID=155338169

Brother Butch
09-17-2007, 01:45 PM
I love that Crockett story. Thanks for posting it

G-khan
09-17-2007, 02:01 PM
I love that Crockett story. Thanks for posting it

One of my favorite reads.. Very good story and says what government should and should not do! Glad you liked it!

richard1984
09-17-2007, 02:35 PM
BUMP.

Read this people!!!

Cowlesy
04-20-2008, 10:26 AM
This a very old thread, but I think it's a very important one. You can also find the excerpt on Ron's congressional website.

http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm

BUMP!

driller80545
04-20-2008, 12:59 PM
Makes me think of Ron Paul's vote regarding the Rosa Parks medal.

Yom
04-20-2008, 01:18 PM
Wow, what an awesome story!