John Bolton: " Obama Speech Put Israel 'On the Chopping Block'"
Amb. Bolton was discussing this ("the most radical anti-Israel speech I can recall any president making") on Glenn Beck's TV show yesterday. Here's a transcript of that segment:
BECK: ... I want to start with a clip here from the president speaking at the general assembly. Listen to what he said here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES PRESIDENT: We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel. And we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. The time -
The time has come to re-launch negotiations without pre- conditions that address the permanent status issues - security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees and Jerusalem.
The goal is clear - two states living side-by-side in peace and security. A Jewish state of Israel with true security for all Israelis and a viable independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: OK. Occupation that began in 1967. That's weird. It was a war. They won.
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: Well, this is the most radical anti-Israel speech I can recall any president making. I just want - let me just -
BECK: I was just going to ask you that.
BOLTON: Glenn, two phrases in what you just heard.
BOLTON: The president says America does not accept and I'm quoting now, "the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," not new Israeli settlements - continued Israeli settlements, which - you know, this is Mr. Wordsmith here.
That calls into question in my mind all Israeli settlements. Then he says that we want a Palestinian state that is contiguous. By the way, Gaza and the west bank were never contiguous Palestinian areas before. And that ends the occupation that began in 1967. That means I think a return to the '67 borders. Now, he doesn't say that ...
BECK: Show me - OK.
BOLTON: ... but that's certainly implicit in the statement.
BECK: Show me what this means. OK. Here is Gaza. Here is the west bank. Contiguous means that it should go like this.
BOLTON: Well, that or the idea is a road between Gaza strip and -
BECK: That's not contiguous.
BOLTON: It makes it contiguous because you're going to make it Palestinian territory. There is one small problem with that -
BECK: So wait - then Israel is not contiguous.
BOLTON: Well, do you think that matters to the Palestinians? I mean, that is the kind of approach to an issue that is attempting to decide the outcome of the negotiations before the negotiations. That's why I think the Israelis should be worried. He has laid out where he wants to end up.
BECK: Can you show me where is 1967?
BOLTON: Well, in this map, the territories that are brown, west of the Jordan River and the Gaza strip, are the so-called occupied territories. And the '67 borders would put Israel back there with only a very narrow strip between Palestinian territory and the Mediterranean.
BECK: OK. Jerusalem?
BOLTON: And that would be - that would remain divided. That would be the capital -
BECK: We have never been for a divided Jerusalem.
BOLTON: Well, we have said it is a matter for the final negotiations. Our State Department, over the years, has resisted any effort by the Israelis to say that Jerusalem is a unified city and the capital of their country, the only country that I'm aware of where the United States disputes what the capital is.
BECK: Did we sell out Israel today?
BOLTON: I think it's very close to it. As I say, I think it's the most anti-Israel speech I can remember by an American president. And the important thing is, when you have the Palestinians in as weak a position as they already are now, to have Barack Obama be their lawyer in effect puts them in a very strong bargaining place.
BECK: All right. I saw some other things in this - that really, really disturbed me. We'll have more with Ambassador Bolton in just a second.
BECK: We're keeping our eye on things here in America. Boy, the world is teetering on the edge. We're back with former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton. Bad day at the U.N.?
BOLTON: Yes. I have to say I was very shaken by this speech. I was disturbed by it because it shows the president in the most naive mode talking about how many problems he wants to solve through the United Nations.
He did everything but say, "Why can't we all just get along?" And I think the warm reception that he received at the U.N. is a reflection they know exactly what he is saying.
BOLTON: The other thing that struck me about the speech was how personal it was to him and how it was his presence and the changes he has made that have enhanced American security, whereas in fact we have seen, just in recent days, a dramatic reduction in that security, cancellation of the Eastern European missile defense sites and evident unwillingness to do what his own commanders think is necessary in Afghanistan, the signaling of potentially large reductions in our nuclear arsenal, all of which is just being done without a thought to the consequences.
BECK: Jeremiah Wright said about a month ago that the president couldn't talk to him because the Jews are telling him exactly what to do and who he can and cannot meet with. I don't think the Jews were talking to him about this speech.
BOLTON: Yes. Well, you know, this is part of a conspiracy theory that a lot of people on the left have, that the Jews are running our foreign policy. And you know, here you and I are - you're a Mormon. I'm a Lutheran - not a very good one - talking about the security of Israel. We're not a part of the Jewish conspiracy.
BOLTON: But a lot of people think that that is something that Obama needs to overcome. And he said today in the speech that America is not doing a service when we couple our interest in Israel's security with a lack of insisting that Israel look out for the Palestinians' rights. There has never been a point where American presidents haven't done that.
BECK: Do you think it's possible to sit in the church with somebody who is as anti-Semitic as Jeremiah Wright is and not come away with an anti-Semitic view?
BOLTON: Well, I think at a minimum, he was either asleep for 20 years or we need an explanation, which we didn't really get in the Jeremiah Wright speech as in the campaign.
BECK: Have we seen that kind of - I mean, we're changing our policy towards Israel at least.
BECK: It may not be anti-Semitic, but we are changing course almost 100 percent.
BOLTON: Dramatically. No, I think we have put Israel on the chopping block. This speech demonstrates to the Palestinians they don't have to make concessions. The president is going to take care of it.
BECK: Do you think we put ourselves kind of on the chopping block as well? I mean, I heard we have one piece of sound here, "No one nation can or should try to dominate." Do we have that?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: OK, "No world order that elevates one nation or group over another will succeed." Well, we shouldn't be domineering, but all nations are not created equal.
BOLTON: The liberal international economic order, stability in the world as a whole since 1945, has rested on the United States, rested on us and allies in many cases, but rested on our nuclear deterrent, rested on our armed forces, rested on our determination to preserve freedom in the world. And I think what he just said is that our policy for the last 60 years has been wrong.
BECK: And we are going for a one world order kind of -
BOLTON: He has made it very clear how much he wants to do through the U.N., an overwhelming percentage of our policy and we will see more of it. You can also read about oue other article Hawkes Learning Answers
Trump’s Blue Collar Base Wants More Jobs And An America Like The Past
WARREN, Ohio — The description of Donald Trump’s voters compiled by Gallup — they “are older, with higher household incomes, are more likely to be male, white non-Hispanic … less likely to hold a bachelor’s degree or higher education … more likely to work in a blue-collar occupation” — could also describe Allan Banner, an Ohio construction worker.
Banner, 66, grew up on a farm in Liberty Township, Ohio, between Youngstown and Warren, that his family has owned for nearly 200 years. He and his wife have four children, all of them college graduates, and two grandchildren. Last year, he went back to his longtime occupation of operating heavy machinery after retiring as the head of the voting machine department for the Trumbull County Board of Elections.
Trumbull County is “a great area because the cost of living is very low,” he said, “but it’s very low because there’s not great jobs here.”
Banner supports Trump because he believes the candidate will be the best at “getting the government out of the way” of business, and dealing with immigration.
“If we weren’t giving welfare to people that are coming in across the Rio Grande or other places,” he said, “then they’re not going to come except those that are actually coming to work.”
Obama's Citizenship: Writ of mandate filed in Obama eligibility case; Gary Kreep, Esq.
This is First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate for our Obama eligibility Project.
Orly Taitz, Esq. (SBN 223433) 26302 La Paz Mission Viejo Ca 92691 Tel: (949) 683-5411 Fax: (949) 586-8110
The Law Office of Gary G. Kreep Gary G. Kreep, Esq. (SBN 066482) 932 D Street, Suite 2 Ramona, CA 92065 Tel: (760) 788-6624 Fax: (760) 788-6414
Attorney for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes; Wiley S Drake; and Markham Robinson, Petitioners, v.
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen; Senator Barack Hussein Obama; Senator Joe Biden; California Democratic Party Electors: Aleitz Huguenin, Lou Paulson, Ian Blue, Mark Cibula, Richard Hundrieser, Lawrence DuBois, Mark Friedman, Mary Hubert, Fred Jackson, LeRoy King, Roberta Brooks, Audrey Gordon, Michael McNerney, Nancy Parrish, James Farley, John Freidenrich, Jeremy Nishihara, Jaime Alvarado, Vinz Koller, Gregory Olzack, David Sanchez, Larry Sheingold, Stephen Smith, Mark Macarro, Nathan Brostrom, Robert “Bob” Handy, Robert Conaway, Greg Warner, Lane Sherman, Ilene Huber, Kenneth Sulzer, Sanford Weiner, Ana Delgado Mascarenas, Joe Perez, Gwen Moore, Anthony Rendon, Karen Waters, Kelley Willis, Silissa Uriarte-Smith, Norma Torres, Alma Marquez, Ray Cordova, Patrick Kahler, Aaruni Thakur, Joe Baca, Jr., Juadina Stallings, Betty McMillion, William Ayer, Gregory Willenborg, James Yedor, Bobby Glaser, Mary Keadle, Frank Salazar, Christine Young, Sid Voorakkara, and DOES 1-100,
Case No.: 34-2008-80000096-CU-WM-GDS
FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
Date: Time: Dept: 31 Judge: Hon. Michael P. Kenney
Filed: 11/13/08 Trial: None Set
AMBASSADOR DR. ALAN KEYES, a resident of the State of Maryland, and DR. WILEY S. DRAKE, SR., and MARKHAM ROBINSON, each a resident of the State of California, all Petitioners herein, bring this litigation.
PETITIONERS allege: I. INTRODUCTION
1. Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, Petitioner herein, is the Presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, in the 2008 election, on the California State Ballot;
2. Dr. Wiley S. Drake, Sr., Petitioner herein, is a Certified California Elector of the American Independent Party and is the Vice Presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, in the 2008 election, on the California State Ballot;
3. Markham Robinson, Petitioner herein, is a Certified California Elector of the American Independent Party, Vice Chairman of America’s Independent Party, and Chairman of the American Independent Party;
4. Debra Bowen, Respondent herein, is the Secretary of State of the State of California (hereafter referred to as “SOS”);
5. Former Senator Barack Hussein Obama (hereinafter referred to as “OBAMA”), Respondent herein, is the Presidential Candidate of the Democratic Party on the California State Ballot;
6. Senator Joe Biden, Respondent herein, is the Vice-Presidential Candidate of the Democratic Party on the California State Ballot;
II. Legal Basis
62. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, provides, in pertinent part, as follows, : "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;"
63. OBAMA has been inaugurated as the President of the United States. However, to properly assume such office, OBAMA must meet the qualifications specified in Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution for the Office of the President of the United States, which includes that he must be a "natural born" citizen. OBAMA has failed to demonstrate that he is a "natural born" citizen. There have been a number of legal challenges before various state and federal courts regarding aspects of non-, lost, or dual citizenship concerning OBAMA. Those challenges, in and of themselves, demonstrate Petitioners’ argument that reasonable doubt exists as to his eligibility to serve as President of the United States.
64. In each year of the general election at which electors for the Offices of President and Vice President of the United States are to be chosen, each congressional nominee shall designate one elector and shall file his or her name, residence, and business address with SOS by October 1 of the Presidential election year. Each United States Senator, or senatorial nominee, of the Democratic Party, as elected or nominated during the last two United States senatorial elections in California, shall designate one Presidential elector and shall file his or her name, residence and business address with SOS by October 1 of the Presidential election year. In the event that there is no Democratic United States senatorial nominee, or no Democratic congressional nominee in any particular district, the state chairperson of the Democratic party shall designate one Presidential elector for each vacancy and shall file his or her name, residence and business address with SOS by October 1 of the Presidential election year. [California Election Code (hereinafter referred to as “EC”) § 7100].
65. SOS is responsible for ensuring the validity of the State election process by, among other things, verifying the qualifications of the voters, approving the ballots and the candidates, supervising the counting of the ballots, and certifying the results. This certification of the vote by SOS, based upon which Electors received the highest number of votes in the state, is the method provided for in California law for ascertaining which Electors are appointed to vote for president. (EC § 15505, 3 U.S.C. § 6). On December 1, or as soon thereafter as the election results have been received from all counties in the state, SOS shall certify the names of the ascertained Electors to the Governor, and then transmit to each Presidential Elector a certificate of election (EC § 15505). The Governor then issues and seals a Certificate of Ascertainment which is delivered to the Electors by December 15 (3 U.S.C. § 6), who then meet to sign the Certificate of Vote (Federal Election Code § 192.006). The office of SOS is intended to be non-biased and to provide the critical sense of fairness and impartiality necessary for the people to have faith in the fundamental underpinnings of the democratic basis for our elections.
66. There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process. Heretofore, only a signed statement from the candidate attesting to his or her meeting those qualifications was requested and received by SOS, with no verification demanded. This practice represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when requesting a California driver’s license. Since SOS has, as its core, the mission of certifying and establishing the validity of the election process, this writ seeks a Court Order barring SOS from certifying any California Electors until documentary proof that a candidate for President is a “natural born” citizen of the United States of America is received. This proof could include items such as an original birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor, and/or a passport with immigration stamps, and/or any other documents that certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.
67. In the case of individuals seeking the Office of President of the United States, the United States Constitution provides for a system of Electors, wherein citizens of the respective states have a state controlled election in which Electors representing the interests of the respective candidates for President on the state ballot are elected to represent the interests of the respective state in the Electoral College. Thus, there is no federal ballot controlled by the federal government. There is a California State ballot where voters elect Electors who in turn represent the named Presidential candidate on the ballot. That is one more reason why SOS has responsibility for the certification of not just the counts of the ballots cast, but, also, the propriety of the contents of the ballot. In case a candidate cannot present proper documentation verifying his or her eligibility to serve, he or she cannot be elected President of the United States, and SOS has a duty to bar the casting of votes by California Electors in support of his or her candidacy. 68. To avert a constitutional crisis which would certainly accrue after such an election through laborious legal challenges, this writ seeks to require SOS to verify the eligibility of a Presidential candidate prior to the candidate appearing on the California ballot,. It is incumbent on the candidates to present the necessary documentation confirming his or her eligibility, but, to date, for this past election, OBAMA has failed to do so.
69. At this point, OBAMA has not allowed independent access to his vault (original hospital) birth records and supporting hospital records. OBAMA’s citizenship status has been, and is being, challenged in over 20 different legal actions in various federal and state courts, which challenges cast doubt on the validity of the electoral process, regardless of outcome. SOS is specifically charged with certifying and guaranteeing the validity of official documents and overseeing the elections in California, such that the people’s confidence in the fundamental aspect of democracy is maintained. To date, in this regard, SOS has not carried out that fundamental duty with regard to this, or any prior Presidential election.
70. This writ requests a court order barring the SOS from both certifying to the Governor the names of the California Electors, and from transmitting to each Presidential Elector a Certificate of Election, until such documentary proof is produced and verified showing that a candidate for President is eligible to serve in that position. In addition, this writ requests a court order barring the California Electors from signing the Certificate of Vote until such documentary proof is produced and verified showing that a candidate for President is eligible to serve in that position.
71. Should OBAMA be discovered, now that he has taken office, to be ineligible to serve in the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that an usurper will have been sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal. This writ seeks to avoid such a potential legal catastrophe in future Presidential elections. 72. 3 U.S.C., Section 8, provides, “The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.” This federal statute confers upon each elector an affirmative duty to discover whether the candidate for President for which the elector is seeking election is a “natural born” citizen. Otherwise, the elector would not know if his vote was being cast in the “manner directed by the Constitution.”
73. Given this constitutionally mandated duty, PETITIONERS, Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates on the November, 2008, California ballot, and 2 Electors pledged to Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates on the November, 2008, California ballot, have standing to bring this Writ before this Court.
74. A growing number of questions have arisen in litigation in at least 10 states contesting whether Senator John McCain or OBAMA are “natural born” citizens and, therefore, constitutionally eligible to be entrusted with the Office of President of the United States. In the litigation against OBAMA, allegations have been made that his admitted dual citizenship in Indonesia, and lack of evidence that he renounced the same, caused a loss of his United States Citizenship as a matter of law. Moreover, evidence released by the Obama campaign purporting to be a “Certification of Live Birth” on its face appears to be of questionable authenticity. One of the many problems with this evidence is that the border design differs from the border designs of other Certifications of Live Birth printed during the same time period. All these questions about both of the candidates are still unresolved. In the course of those lawsuits, most of which have been dismissed, it has been determined that there exists no designated official in the federal government directly charged with the responsibility of determining whether any Presidential candidate meets the qualifications of Article II of the Constitution of the United States. In most states, that responsibility is vested with the political parties, all of which have a conflict of interest in making any such determination, and none of which have been forthcoming with information or evidence verifying any candidate’s compliance with the eligibility requirements.
75. A press release was issued on October 31, 2008, by the Hawaii Department of Health by its Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. Dr. Fukino said that she had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Former Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
That statement failed to resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation and press accounts. Being “on record” could mean either that its contents are in the computer database of the department or there is an actual “vault” original.
76. Further, the report does not say whether the birth certificate in the “record” is a Certificate of Live Birth or a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. For births prior to 1972, a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child’s birth. For that reason, its value as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained. The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176 allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question, whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country. Therefore, the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the Live Birth.
77. An unprecedented and looming constitutional crisis awaits if a President elected by the popular vote and the electoral vote does not constitutionally qualify to serve in that capacity. In addition, if OBAMA is not a “natural born” citizen and not eligible for presidency, OBAMA will be subject to the criminal Provisions of the California Elections Code, stating, “Any person who files or submit for filing a nomination paper or declaration of candidacy knowing that it, or any part of it, has been made falsely is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years or by both the fine and imprisonment” (EC § 18203).
Further, OBAMA, SOS, the Governor of the State of California, and all of the California Electors may be subject to the penal provisions of the California Elections Code which states, “Any person who commits fraud and any person who aids or abets fraud or attempts to aid or abet fraud, in connection with any vote cast, to be cast, or attempted to be cast, is guilty of felony, punishable by imprisonment for 16 months or two or three years.”
(EC § 18500 ).
78. Pursuant to EC Section 6905, in case of the death or absence of any elector chosen by the appropriate Democratic Party nominee, or incumbent, or if the number of electors is deficient for any other reason, the electors then present shall elect, from the citizens of the state, as many persons as will supply the deficiency.
79. Pursuant to EC §7100, the Electors are appointed directly by the nominees of the Democratic Party in each Congressional District and one Elector is appointed by each U. S. Senator or U. S. Senate candidate in the most recent election for each seat. In the November, 2008, election, however, there were no Democratic Party nominees for two of the Congressional Districts, and, as a result, pursuant to EC § 7100, the Democratic Party State Chairman appointed Electors for those two Congressional Districts. In addition, in 2008, an individual listed as Ilene Huber was nominated as an Elector from the 28th Congressional District by Congressman Howard Berman. As shown by the Affidavit of Dean C. Logan, Registrar/Recorder/County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles, California, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, marked “EXHIBIT A,” no Ilene Huber was registered to vote in Los Angeles County at the time of the November, 2008, election – Congressman Berman’s Congressional District lies entirely within the County of Los Angeles in the State of California. Attached hereto and made a part hereof, marked “EXHIBIT B,” is a copy of a Certificate of Death for an Ilene Huber, issued by the County of Humboldt in the State of California, stating that Ms. Huber died on October 22, 2001. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereon allege that there is no other Ilene Huber registered to vote in the State of California. At the meeting of the Electoral College in California on December 15, 2008, a woman by the name of Ilene Haber, was allowed to vote in place of Ms. Huber. Ms. Huber was one of the Congressional District nominated Electors listed in an e-mail Chris Meyer sent to SOS on October 1, 2008. The designations submitted in the e-mail submitted October 1, 2008, to SOS did not comply with EC § 7100, in that Mr. Meyer was not a U.S. Senator, member of Congress, or Democratic nominee for such positions. Pursuant to EC § 7100, each nominee or Member of Congress of the Democratic Party in the respective Congressional District is to file their designation of their nominee with SOS. As shown by the e mail from Mr. Meyer to SOS, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, marked “EXHIBIT C,” this was not done. Instead, Mr. Meyer made this submission. At the time that he did so, he provided no evidence to SOS of his authority to act on behalf of the various Democratic Congressional nominees or Members of Congress. At the December 15, 2008, voting of the Electoral College, Ms. Haber was allowed to vote without being elected to take the place of Ms. Huber. California Election Code § 6905 provides, as follows: “In case of the death or absence of any elector chosen, or if the number of electors is deficient for any other reason, the electors then present shall elect, from the citizens of the state, as many persons as will supply the deficiency.”
That procedure was not followed, thus throwing into question the validity of at least that one Electoral College vote.Remember you can hire homework market to write your essay on Political Science Essay Writing Service
Ronald Reagan Speaks to 'Young Americans for Freedom'.
"I welcome you to California, to this city here of ours on the Bay, San Francisco.
"You know I have become a student of Greek history. I have learned that there was an ancient Greek city-state that had a custom that anyone who proposed a new law or program for government did so with a noose around his neck and standing on a chair, with the other end tied to a tree. If they liked the proposal he made, they removed the noose; if they didn't, they removed the chair. I have developed a morbid fascination for the customs of ancient Greece."
"Now I know you didn't come here to listen to a politician tell you about his troubles. You are absolutely right, so I am going to talk about yours, which seems fair enough because a lot of your troubles seem caused by people in my present line of work."
- On Barry Goldwater Years -
"A decade has passed since Barry Goldwater walked a lonely path across this land, speaking truths that needed to be heard. His voice was raised trying to rekindle in our country all the great ideals and principles that set our nation apart from all others that preceded us. But louder and more strident voices uttered easily sold clichés, cartoons with acid-tipped pens ridiculed and ranted. Barry Goldwater's unforgivable sin ten years ago was simply and honestly to speak his mind.
"He thought that free enterprise was in danger from excessive government and he said so. He thought that some Americans were too complacent about the threats of Communism and he said so."
"Shortly after the 1964 election, I am sure you have heard this one about the young man who said, 'I was told that if I voted for Barry Goldwater we would be in war in six months. I did and we are.'
"Ten years ago the Postmaster General said, 'We know what Senator Goldwater is talking about—extremism, his hate and divisiveness. It is spitting on the ambassador to the United Nation.' A labor leader drew a parallel between Goldwater and Hitler. The Governor of California said, 'The stench of Fascism is in the air.' The National Democratic Chairman said, 'the Republican platform of Goldwater is an exercise in fantasy, fear, and hate.' The publisher of a paper that prints all the news fit to print warned that the kind of backing that Goldwater had was the kind of business backing behind the Nazis in the early 30's.
"A national columnist [speaking against Barry Goldwater's conservatism] pointed out that all the tyrants in history from Caesar and Napoleon to Hitler and Stalin, acted in the name of liberty and justice. All this and more was spewed forth because the man [Barry Goldwater] pledged to support the Constitution of the United States, and felt called upon to remind us that even a land as rich as ours can't go on forever borrowing against the future, leaving a legacy of debt for another generation; that inflation could reduce the standards of living for an entire generation that had no part in the folly; that if young Americans were asked to fight and die for their country it should be for a cause worth winning and they should be allowed to win it as quickly as possible.
"It is well for us to be reminded of the hate-filled rhetoric that was spewed forth over such a long period of time about that pleasant, patriotic and courageous man and how uncalled-for it seems now as we look back."
- On Economic Troubles We're In -
"Right now American business and industry are in the deepest trouble they have ever been in, in our Nation's entire history. A large percentage of the people in this country today lay all their troubles at the door of business. The word profit is synonymous with evil as well the term "private property" and therefore personal freedom, freedom of choice for everybody, is in danger. Profit, property and freedom are inseparable, you can't have any one of them without the other two.
"For a long time now we haven't been taught enough economics in our schools and sometimes I am amazed at all of you, I don't know how you have held out against what has been a consistent program of indoctrination, particularly through our educational system, and how you have avoided the economic illiteracy that is widespread. The result has been, however, that self-seeking demagogues have been able to take advantage of this—not of you but of those others. Investors, workers and consumers have been divided to the point that we have forgotten we are all vital components of something called free enterprise, totally dependent upon each other. If the public's lack of understanding is not soon corrected, the public may soon do great and irreparable harm to itself by demanding more interference than we already have of government.
"Government, as you know, in its answers to the problems, is somewhat less than a howling success, particularly when government involves itself in things that are not in its proper province. And we don't have to talk theoretically; we could look, for example, to one of the Iron Curtain countries where government is in complete charge. There is nothing to interfere with its carrying out its dreams of regimentation and regulation."
"We live in the only country in the World where it takes more intelligence just to figure out your income tax, than it does to earn an income.
"The essence of the American Revolution was a system that produced a limited government and the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with an orderly society, and free men were released to perform such miracles of invention, construction and production as the world had never seen. One half of all the economic activity in the entire history of mankind has taken place in these two centuries under American auspices. Our system of free enterprise, spark-plugged by the hope of economic reward, has lifted more burdens from the backs of more people than any other system the world has ever known."
"And still a great many people have lost faith in our economic system and for that matter we have lost faith in ourselves."
"Our traditional concept of states' rights and local autonomy has been distorted; but much worse, the people's relationship with government has been dramatically altered.
"I think something that illustrates this is a story that appeared in a column in an Eastern newspaper not too long ago. It had to do with a welfare recipient who had a part-time job on a farm:
One day he yielded to temptation and stole a smoked ham out of the farmer's smokehouse. He took it to the grocer and sold it to him for $27. Then he took $20 of the $27 and bought $80 worth of food stamps which he was eligible to do by virtue of being on welfare. Then he took $29 worth of food stamps and bought the ham back. He put the ham back in the smokehouse and he bought $51 worth of groceries. Then, the columnist said, the grocer had made a profit, the farmer had his ham back, the welfare recipient ended up with $7 in cash and $51 in groceries, with no one being the loser."
"It is no wonder that our people are in their season of discontent."
"Government by the people only works if the people work at it."
"Now there are some people in this country who accepted the land planning bill as an environmental protection bill and there are others—most of them—who were not aware that such a bill was even before Congress. The truth is, that bill was a threat to the entire traditional concept of private ownership of land, a threat greater than anything that has ever been proposed in these 200 years, and that fact was not understood by some of the Congressmen who voted for it. ... our fears were justified, for when the bill was passed he said, 'of course you realize that once it is passed we have no way of controlling it when it then goes into a bureau or agency of government that will implement it,' and that's what we had been trying to tell them all the time."
"And so we are governed by an ever-increasing bureaucracy made up of people who were never elected to office and can't be removed from office by voters. Regulations are spawned in the multitudes."
"This is where we must begin the fight back, if free enterprise and freedom itself is to survive.""Does anyone truly believe that we can socialize the doctor without socializing the patient?"
"Daniel Webster was right when he said, 'every generation there are those who want to rule well, but they mean to rule. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.' "
["Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." -- Daniel Webster]
"In his latest volume “ECONOMICS AND THE PUBLIC PURPOSE”, John Kenneth Galbreath asserts that the market arrangements of our economy have given us inadequate housing, terrible mass transit, poor health care, etc., etc. and socialism is inevitable. I believe this is the first time Mr. Galbreath, in his talk of the affluent society [the one percent], has finally come out in his declaration and admitted that socialism is what he has in mind."
"We’ve got to have the confidence, that the people can understand if they are given access to the facts. Ignorance is the only thing we have to fear, ignorance that permits the modern day populace to gain a following for their philosophy of redistribution. We have to communicate not just with each other, we have to communicate with the people who are the customers and with the people who are the laborers, the workers."
"We must recognize that an assault on one particular industry is an assault on all. We have to make them understand we are all in the same boat together and if we wait until it is aimed expressly at just one particular segment before we start fighting back, then we are really in trouble, because the ongoing struggle is for survival of the free market system."
"We have been fighting a kind of a defensive, rear guard action. Step by step we have retreated much farther than we know. Too many people blame business for inflation and look to government for the answer. Government is not the answer to our problems, government is the problem."
"The policy of redistribution of the output of an economy that's already too small is based on the fallacy that we can eliminate poverty by giving everyone more money, higher wages, bigger welfare checks, pensions and social security and increased unemployment insurance to increase the purchasing power. The fact is, we can only live better by producing more goods and services for each other. Money is no good if there is nothing there to buy. For too long a time our belief in jobs for everyone is the answer, at the same time that we keep negotiating higher and higher pay for a lower output, has only contributed to inflation."
- The Idea ! -"I have urged a more aggressive policy of fighting government harassment, opposing the status quo and the collectivists, who would replace the free market with a planned economy."
“Let us ask the heads of industry and business in America for a meeting with the heads of the communications media to see if they are truly aware that you can't have a free press unless you have a free economy at the same time.
“I reiterate all these suggestions but of late I have been wondering if there is not something more that would put us on the offensive. It is not enough to fight the stupidity of the Karl Marx theory by talking the free market theory. Have we neglected the most potent weapon in our arsenal, the use of the free enterprise system itself in behalf of a broader cross section of citizens? We are beset by vexing problems and we can't deny the problems result from government action, but to complain as I have been doing, and then wait for the same government that created the problem in the first place to do an about-face and come up with solutions, is a little fruitless. You can't lick something with nothing, just to complain that the answer is wrong. We must go to them and say 'we've got a better idea'."
“Take Social Security for a starter, most of them are scared to even mention it, but it is about as potent right now and destructive a time bomb as we have ticking away at the foundations of our free society. More than one-half of the taxpayers pay more social security than they do income tax. When it started, the average citizen paid about $3 for every $100 he could save over and above taxes and the cost of living. Today, it is taking $84 of every $100 that he can mange to save. If a private insurance company attempted to sell a plan that cost so much and paid so little, they would be put in jail.
“The average worker today is losing some $200,000 that would be his if the same amount could be invested in private productive plans."
"Worse, the ratio of earners to retirees is dropping to the point that one day it will be one on one.
"The simple fact is the United States Social Security system is bankrupt. It has been bankrupt for 20 years but this has been concealed by an 800 percent increase in the payroll tax without a matching increase in benefits. Now politicians so far have provided no answers and you can bet that the Social Security bureaucracy is pretending that if it doesn't look, the problem will go away. Unfortunately, when the roof falls in it is going to fall on all of us."
"At the same time, we find a plan that will restore equity to the present-day workers.
"In our resistance to what some see as a creeping socialism, we have just theorized about the superiority of capitalism. Have we really made capitalism work to prove these benefits can do everything for everybody better than the promises of the populous of the socialist? All they can offer with their system, if you analyze it, is to take from the haves and give to the have-nots. That doesn't eliminate have-nots, it just changes them around.
"But capitalism can work to make everyone a "have".
"Over [one] hundred years ago Abraham Lincoln signed the Homestead Act. There was a wide distribution of land and they didn't confiscate anyone's already privately owned land. They did not take from those who owned to give to others who did not own. It set the pattern for the American capitalistic system. We need an Industrial Homestead Act. There are business leaders today who are exploring this kind of modern homestead plan [i.e. Capital Homesteading for every citizen]. They range from government allowing the corporate tax to go directly to the people [who own new shares as dividends], that 50% percent of the earnings of the corporations that now is a tax to the government, some of them suggest: 'Why don't you distribute equally and equitably to the people to be used as each individual chooses, rather than having it spent on their behalf by government bureaucrats?'
"It goes further than that, to a more sophisticated scheme that business has been toying with, increasing the worker, and citizen, investment in corporate America.
"I know that plans have been suggested in the past that all had this flaw, they were based on making the present owners give up some of their ownership to the non-owners. Now this isn't true of the ideas that are being talked today. Very simply these business leaders have come to the realization that it is time to formulate a plan to accelerate the economic growth and production, at the same time we broaden the ownership of productive capital with the future and new shares of industrial output.
"The American dream has always been to have a piece of the action. Income, you know, results from only two things, it can result from capital or it can result from labor. If the worker and citizen begins getting his income from both sources at once he has a real stake in increasing production and increasing the output. One such plan is based on financing future expansion in such a way as to create a stock ownership culture. It does not reduce the holdings of the present owners, nor does it require the employees to divert their own [past] savings into stock purchases. This one plan, and undoubtedly there are alternatives, utilizes an employee stock ownership trust to purchase newly issued stock when a corporation needs new capital for expansion. The trust acquires its funds by borrowing with a guarantee from the corporation, from a commercial bank or other lending institution. Over a ten-year period it is possible for [estimates $21 trillion+] of newly formed capital to be owned by individuals and families who today have little or no hope of acquiring a vested interest in our capitalistic system."
"What better answer could we have to socialism? What an export item on the world market. What argument could a foreign land have against a corporation which made its 'have-not' citizens into 'haves'?"
[Perhaps, that's were 'Every Citizen an Owner', makes sense.]
"In short, I am suggesting that we face a choice between government that has grown desperate, embarking on a course that leads to confiscation and redistribution, or using the great talent and expertise of the private sector to spread legitimate capital participation in free enterprise to those who now are only property-less employees."
"In 1878 Senator Hill said, 'I do not dread industrial corporations as instruments of power to destroy this country, but one corporation we may well all dread. That corporation is the federal government. If this great, ambitious, ever-growing corporation becomes oppressive, who shall check it? If it becomes too wayward, who shall control it? If it becomes unjust, who shall trust it? Watch and guard with sleepless dread, that corporation which can make all property and rights, all states and people, all liberty and hope its playthings in an hour, and its victims forever.'
"Yesterday, I told those distinguished business leaders and I will tell you, even at your youthful age, whatever you do, don't risk having to face your children or your children's children some day when they ask, 'where were you and what were you doing on the day that freedom was lost?' "
-Ronald Reagan, Speech-Young Americans for Freedom, July 1974.Other services offered
A Rose for Emily Summary
Free Coursehero Answers