Friday, April 3, 2009

Gateway Pundit: Forget the Queen... Obama Bows to Saudi King! (Video)

Gateway Pundit: Forget the Queen... Obama Bows to <em>Saudi King!</em> (Video)

At the G-20 summit, President Obama greeted the King of Saudi Arabia with a very pronounced, low bow. A foreign news station captured the bow on film, which eventually made its way onto YouTube. The actual bow occurs at the 55 second mark in the video below. To Obama, I’m sure this was simply an opportunity to show the Saudi King that he, President Obama, is different and not so stuck up as to insult Saudi Arabian custom. He’s cool enough to humor the Saudi Arabians for a day, after all "different strokes for different folks." Unfortunately, Obama and others who think like him do not realize that, though we have removed the significance from nearly everything in our own culture, gestures such as this still mean a lot to the rest of the world. Just as the Saudi Arabians have the right to maintain their own culture, so do we.

One of the last vestiges of religion is mainstream Western culture is that we are taught, out of deference to God, not bow to any man be he an emperor, a king, or a saint. For the representative of the leading Western nation to essentially repudiate a deeply meaningful cultural taboo as a small gesture to a despot who regularly funds terrorists is absolutely disgusting. At best, he will be seen as subservient to the Saudi Arabians, a country which is not exactly beloved in the Middle East. I don’t honestly believe that Barack is a Muslim and is paying respects to the king as some have suggested, but this is truly an unprecedented development. It will only serve to further highlight the difference between conservatives and liberals. While conservatives see it as a betrayal of our beliefs and values and a sign of weakness to a foreign tyrant, liberals will undoubtedly try to portray us as stodgy, backward thinkers who don’t know when to lighten up.

I don’t expect this be presented on any news station except for Fox, but, if it somehow hits the other networks, expect liberal commentators to spin this as Obama’s new commitment to being a global team player. If we were in grade school I’d be impressed by little Obama’s maturity going around to all those misunderstood bullies: "I’m OK, you’re OK, we’re all OK!" Touching… You might be able to convince yourself that works with children, but we’re not talking about one kid who plays Pokémon and another who plays Yu-Gi-Oh. We’re talking about one culture that believes in Jihad, a global empire, and repressive sharia law juxtaposed with one founded on individual value, equality, and freedom. We are not in kindergarten and, last I checked, my ancestors suffered and died for this nation to create a place for themselves and their children that is truly unique in this world. I demand that my president respect my values and our culture first and then, and only then, should he go out of his way to make gestures of good will. Mr. President, I’m insulted. Is there anything that you won’t sell for the right price?

Visit our website for news, opinion, and forums at
www.moderncounterculture.com

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Sharpton: A Modern Quixote, Chasing After Windmils

delona_Chimp.jpg

Copyright NY Post and Sean Delonas (www.nypost.com)


I think Al Sharpton is in the wrong line of work. For years, the good “reverend” has worked tirelessly to secure the civil rights of his African American supporters. Through all his cantankerous grandstanding, however, it appears that Al has been hiding a world-class imagination and an intellect worth of the “special” moniker.

Apparently, Al’s gifts can transport him to a magical world in which the President of the United States is responsible for writing and signing bills. In this world, freedom of speech is a delightful thing so long as Al cannot think of a way in which it might insult him. The best part of Al’s world is the wishing well, also known the National Action Network (NAN). It can give him whatever he desires from gumdrops to ending the careers of his enemies. Obviously the guy should be writing fantasy books or working in Hollywood.

Sharpton’s unparalleled intelligence has given us his latest escapade: calling for the removal of Col Allen, the NY Post’s Editor in Chief, and Sean Delonas, a NY Post cartoonist. Sharpton started the controversy last Wednesday, February 18th after the Post published a cartoon depicting a dead chimpanzee with two police in the foreground (shown above).

Sharpton immediately seized upon the cartoon, going public with accusations of intentionally poor taste and implicit racism. His fellows at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) called it intentionally racist. The NAACP’s president, Benjamin Todd Jealous, took it a step further, labeling the comic an outright “invitation to [the] assassination” of President Obama.

Despite the all hubbub coming from the civil “rights” groups, it takes quite a stretch of the imagination to link the cartoon to President Obama. As any well-informed citizen should know, the President cannot write laws. Sean Delonas, in line with Post tradition, seized upon two current events and combined them into one cartoon. The cartoon was intended to mock the haphazard manner in which the Stimulus was crafted, insinuating that even a monkey could have done better. The meaning of the cartoon is crystal clear.

Why then, did Al decide to go after the Post? Why did the NAACP go beyond plausible insinuations of racism to state that the cartoon called for assassination? Is there a more sinister reason behind this brouhaha? Sadly, Mr. Sharpton’s valiant stand against “racism,” may be nothing more than petty revenge. The NY Post has been a proverbial thorn in Sharpton’s side for the past year, covering accusations that he used his non-profit, the National Action Network, to threaten individuals and corporations with racially charged protests unless they donated to the NAN. The Post first ran an article on this alleged extortion in May and then another on the ensuing IRS probe into the NAN.

Now Sharpton intends to use the national foment he created to damage the Post’s reputation and extort them into firing two honest, hardworking employees. He has even asked the FCC to investigate News Corp and the City of New York to investigate the racial diversity of the Post. This man is and has always been an unabashed racist of the worst sort. He seizes upon any incident that could possibly be construed as racially insensitive to grow his power base and raise more money for his cronies. Now I ask you, do you want to simply sit back and grumble, or do you want to take action?

Aim below the belt and hit old Al where it seems to count: in his wallet. This guy has been extorting companies into supporting him, and I say we “convince” those same companies that they shouldn’t touch the NAN with a ten-foot pole. Where can we find such a list: why just follow the links below to the NY Post. Here are a few: PepsiCo, General Motors, Chrysler, Wal-Mart, FedEx, Continental Airlines, Johnson&Johnson, Chase, Forest City Ratner, MGM Mirage, and American Honda. Write letters, send e-mails, and leave voicemails. Then, if you want to show your support for the Post, purchase a subscription. Nothing is more convincing to a business than green.

Madas

www.moderncounterculture.com

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/sharpton_charity_NAN/2008/06/15/104748.html

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05242008/postopinion/editorials/same_old_sharpton__112339.htm

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06192008/news/regionalnews/subpoena_blitz_puts_heat_on_al_116165.htm



Visit our website for news, opinion, and forums at

Why Bailouts are Wrong: A Life Lesson from David Crockett

This story first appeared in The Life Of Colonel David Crockett in 1884. It is in no way my work; I found it on the Advocates for Self-Government Website at: http://www.theadvocates.org/library/christian-crockett.html

David Crockett, Charity, and Congress


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, and 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 money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

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

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 it 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 saddle-bags, 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 asked him if he could give me a chew of tobacco."

"Yes," said he, "such as we make and use in this part of the country; but it may not suit your taste, as you are probably in the habit of using better."

"With that he pulled out of his pocket part of a twist in its natural state, and handed it to me. I took a chew, and handed it back to him. He turned to his plow, and was about to start off. 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 sockdologer. I had been making up my mind that he was one of those churlish fellows who care for nobody but themselves, and take bluntness for independence. I had seen enough of them to know there is a way to reach them, and was satisfied that if I could get him to talk to me I would soon have him straight. But this was entirely a different bundle of sticks. He knew me, had voted for me before, and did not intend to do it again. Something must be the matter; I could not imagine what it was. I had heard of no complaints against me, except that some of the dandies about the village ridiculed some of the wild and foolish things that I too often say and do, and said that I was not enough of a gentleman to go to Congress. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest."

"Thank you for that, but you find fault with only one vote. You know the story of Henry Clay, the old huntsman and the rifle; you wouldn’t break your gun for one snap."

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

"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 round the district, you will tell the people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, J 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 that 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 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.

"It is not exactly pertinent to my story, but I must tell you more about him. When I saw him with his family around him, I was not surprised that he loved to stay at home. I have never in any other family seen a manifestation of so much confidence, familiarity and freedom of manner of children toward their parents mingled with such unbounded love and respect.

"He was not at the house when I arrived, but his wife received and welcomed me with all the ease and cordiality of an old friend. She told me that her husband was engaged in some out-door business, but would be in shortly. She is a woman of fine person; her face is not what the world would at first sight esteem beautiful. In a state of rest there was too much strength and character in it for that, but when she engaged in conversation, and especially when she smiled, it softened into an expression of mingled kindness, goodness, and strength that was beautiful beyond anything I have ever seen.

"Pretty soon her husband came in, and she left us and went about her household affairs. Toward night the children–he had about seven of them– began to drop in; some from work, some from school, and the little ones from play. They were introduced to me, and met me with the same ease and grace that marked the manner of their mother. Supper came on, and then was exhibited the loveliness of the family circle in all its glow. The father turned the conversation to the matters in which the children had been interested during the day, and all, from the oldest to the youngest, took part in it. They spoke to their parents with as much familiarity and confidence as if they had been friends of their own age, yet every word and every look manifested as much respect as the humblest courtier could manifest for a king; aye, more, for it was all sincere, and strengthened by love. Verily it was the Happy Family.

"I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. When supper was over, one of the children brought him a Bible and hymn-book. He turned to me and said:

"Colonel, I have for many years been in the habit of family worship night and morning. I adopt this time for it that all may be present. If I postpone it some of us get engaged in one thing and some in another, and the little ones drop off to sleep, so that it is often difficult to get all together."

"He then opened the Bible, and read the Twenty-third Psalm, commencing: "The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want." It is a beautiful composition, and his manner of reading it gave it new beauties. We then sang a hymn, and we all knelt down. He commenced his prayer "Our Father who art in Heaven." No one who has not heard him pronounce those words can conceive how they thrilled through me, for I do not believe that they were ever pronounced by human lips as by him. I had heard them a thousand times from the lips of preachers of every grade and denomination, and by all sorts of professing Christians, until they had become words of course with me, but his enunciation of them gave them an import and a power of which I had never conceived. There was a grandeur of reverence, a depth of humility, a fullness of confidence and an overflowing of love which told that his spirit was communing face to face with its God. An overwhelming feeling of awe came over me, for I felt that I was in the invisible presence of Jehovah. The whole prayer was grand–grand in its simplicity, in the purity of the spirit it breathed, in its faith, its truth, and its love. I have told you 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 world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted–at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow-citizens–I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can to-day 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."

The hour for the meeting of the House had by this time arrived. We walked up to the Capitol together, but I said not a word to him about moving a reconsideration. I would as soon have asked a sincere Christian to abjure his religion.

I had listened to his story with an interest which was greatly increased by his manner of telling it, for, no matter what we may say of the merits of a story, a speech, or a sermon, it is a very rare production which does not derive its interest more from the manner than the matter, as some of my readers have doubtless, like the writer, proved to their cost.


About the Author: Edward S. Ellis

This story appeared in The Life Of Colonel David Crockett, published by Porter & Coates in 1884. Now in the public domain.



Visit our website for news, opinion, and forums at
www.moderncounterculture.com

Welcome to the Modern Counterculture

obama_wheaties_02.jpg


For those of you who have been living under a rock, Barack Obama's inauguration was this past Monday January 20, 2009. His speech pleasantly surprised me with its unprecedented inclusion of concrete policies and positions. I know many expected him to stick to his campaign standby of inspirational sound bites, but they seemed to be obviously disappointed. It was funny how you could hear the applause die down as the amount of concrete content went up. It's kind of like when you go to the supermarket and your disappointed to see your favorite cereal with the caption "now with nutritional value!" You know the kind that I mean. Let's face it, you don't exactly pick up a bowl of captain crunch for its nutritional value. You eat it because it's addictive, numbs your brain, and gives you a pleasant buzz. Messing with the formula diminishes the cheap thrills you love so much but doesn't add enough substance to make it worth your while.

Since I am currently at college (one of those places famed for its diversity) I was pleasantly surprised to see that only about 90% of the students were ecstatic about the occasion. The dissenting 10% really adds flavor to the campus... At first I couldn't quite figure out what the excitement was about... but then it hit me. This isn't just any inauguration, it's the inauguration of the greatest president in history. Don't believe it? Don't tell me you're one of those old fashioned fogies who prefers to write history after it happens! Just take a stroll through your local bookstore. The displays are so cute... next to Dr. Seuss there's a nice little beginners reader with the caption, "Son of Promise and Child of Hope."

PhonePics 094.jpg

How can you argue with that? Start 'em young and they'll grow up right. It seems these days, gentle reader, that history is written before it happens. Barack doesn't have the potential to be a great president... he was the greatest before he was even elected. Sure there are a few small details in the way such like actually being president, but if we all play nice and bipartisan (what irony hearing that word from the part of Nancy Pelosi and pals) its sure to come true. This desire to write history before it happens is partly why the inauguration was so important for so many people. It wasn't just any inauguration. It was history in the making. No I don't mean an event who's significance is not yet understood, I mean the first step between a fairly tale and reality.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, they have something more difficult than the media influenced voters to contend with now: the real world. No matter where your political leanings lie, it's hard to argue with the media bias during the election season. Mohandas Gandhi and Mother Theresa got tougher press coverage than Obama. For God's sake, CBS actually used "Yes we can" and Obama's campaign logo to advertise for their upcoming comedy lineup. The comedians themselves won't touch Obama. Chris Rock and many others admit to being unable or unwilling to make light of Obama's gaffes. Leno was focusing on Bush and Cheney even on the day of the inauguration. Could you imagine if George W. Bush's oath was anything like Obama's? We would never have heard the end of that no matter who's fault it was. As for those of us who have a sense of proper decorum, moral fiber, and personal character, we will grow to like and then love Mr. Bush as time passes us by. Here was a man who, despite an unceasing onslaught of bad press coverage, cranks like Nancy Pelosi, unprecedented disasters, and other calamities stayed true to what he believed and treated those around him with dignity and respect. Some may feel that he made the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons, but at least the man has convictions not dictated by the latest polls. George W. Bush was deemed a loser and Barack Obama was crowned the president by entrenched media interests. The Democratic party, meanwhile, has latched onto Obama's reputation and you can bet that they'll milk it for all it's worth. They've tried to ride his popularity, but fundamentally they do not view the world in the same way. Mark my words, Obama and the top Democratic leaders will be in a state of mutual loathing by the next election.


Thank God there is something that can still be done. If the people elected Bush and his media image tore him down... then the people can tear down the image the media elected. Don't misunderstand me. I am not bitter, at least not towards Barack himself. Barack Obama seems like a good man. He seems competent and he seems fairly centrist. Unfortunately, there is little substance to back that and I am disgusted at those who spent the last year fabricating a media friendly image to fill in the gaps. Barack's bipartisan pitch is distinctly at odds with the Democratic party's traditional tactics. Either he's misrepresenting himself or his party is misrepresenting itself. I'll put money on the second choice. This is the party, after all, who fought so many of Bush's nominations despite their obvious qualifications and the lack of precedent for such fierce opposition. During Ruth Bader Ginsberg's Supreme Court nomination, ideological issues were barely brought up. Ranking Republicans voted for her on the basis on her competence, not her views. This is the party which has done nothing but criticize Bush for policies they themselves authorized. This is the party who's Speaker said to the national news that the Republicans deserved no input on the stimulus package because they "lost the election." How is that bipartisan? Bipartisanship is a give and take, not one party demanding the other cower and let every piece of legislation pass unopposed. Now, this same divisive party expects to use Obama's popularity and reasonable persona to remake themselves? I'm sorry, but there is no way that I will forget the true face of the Democratic party; this is the party which bitterly opposed almost every Republican and Bush administration policy for eight years in an extremely partisan manner. People often say that Bush failed... but how many stop and ask themselves what might have been accomplished with even the slightest bit of reasonable cooperation? Now they want to move on as the reasonable "bipartisan" party, no doubt setting up conservatives for a media thrashing should they decide to oppose any of the Democrat's policies?


Three years ago, the Democrats were the minority party and they used scare tactics, lies, demonstrations, and other counterproductive but high profile means to claw their way back to the top. While conservatives went to work and cared for their families, the liberal left was protesting, lobbying, and filing frivolous lawsuits against laws and institutions that stand for traditional conservative beliefs. Now, however, they have lost their most powerful tools. They cannot protest and they cannot blame someone else. They are in control and I call on each and every person, regardless of his or her political leanings, to demand the truth from the media. We cannot allow the fabric of society to be changed by a lie. We cannot allow fear to dictate policy and obscure the truth. When you see that a news outlet is unfairly reporting the news, boycott it and get your friends involved. Don't just shake your head when you read about corruption and waste in the paper. Run for local office or join a local campaign. Don't go about your day lamenting days gone by. Go to a protest... heck... start a protest. When's the last time you saw a serious conservative protest? Granted conservatives prefer more productive means of opposition, but, if that's what the media wants, then give them something they cannot ignore. My friends today we must become the modern counterculture. What small but dedicated groups of ultra leftists did to society in the 1960s and 1970s we are now in the position to do in turn. Popular culture lacks substance and it treats large swaths of political ideology, which are held by a large portion of the American population, with disdain. The media is entirely one sided, education amounts to no less than brainwashing, and politicians are spending your money without a care in the world. We need but create a small spark and the house of cards will come burning down. You can't fool all of the people all of the time. Mr. Obama was right... change has come to America. Let's make it happen.


Vive la liberté!

---Madas




Visit our website for news, opinion, and forums at

www.moderncounterculture.com