Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Corruption’

DOJ’s Pete Kadzik Has Been Colluding With the Clinton’s and It’s ALL EXPOSED Here


Libyan Arms Dealer Not Charged to Cover for Hillary Clinton [NEWS VIDEO]


waving flagAuthored By Joe Scudder October 6, 2016

A Libyan arms dealer won’t be prosecuted for arming terrorists because his boss was Secretary of State Clinton. You can’t quite claim they are hiding the truth about this Libyan arms dealer because they openly admit they are dropping charges to protect Hillary.REALLY

 

I wonder how many Libyan arms dealers will be committing suicide in the near future.

Fox News reports,

A last-minute decision to drop federal charges against an or a liararms dealer who threatened to expose Hillary Clinton’s alleged role in arming Islamist militants in Libya is prompting fresh claims the Department of Justice is protecting the Democratic presidential nominee from potentially damaging revelations.

Federal prosecutors faced a Wednesday deadline to turn over discovery documents to the legal team of American Marc Turi, who had been charged with selling weapons to Libyan rebels. Late Tuesday, an announcement came that the government was dropping the case, which was set to go to trial on Nov. 8 – the day American voters choose between Clinton and GOP nominee Donald Trump. The move may avert a release of potentially explosive documents.gag me

Speaking to Fox News last year in his only extended television interview, Turi provided documents and email exchanges with high level members of congress as well as military, and State Department employees to back up his claim that the Obama administration authorized in 2011, at the height of the Arab Spring, a covert weapons program that spun out of control.

Supposedly, this is a scandal because many of these weapons “fell into the hands” (quite by accident, they say) of terrorists in Syria. No, idiots. They were put into the hands of terrorists in Libya who then went to Syria or gave the weapons to their fellow terrorists there.

I can’t believe that this woman is being taken seriously by anyone as a presidential candidate. She ought to be tried for crimes against humanity. Yet our government agencies and our media energetically cover for her. 2.0

She is, indeed, a founder of ISIS, just like Donald Trump says.islams whore

Trump was once considered unpresidential for claiming he could shoot someone in the street and still be popular. But Clinton has actually committed far more murderous crimes, and she is treated as if she is a seasoned politician.

In a way, that’s true. “Politician” is becoming a synonym for criminal.

Socialists Never Let a Crisis go to Waste.. Even if They Have to Create One


waving flagCommentary by Rob Morse, June 23, 2016

Do you see what I see when we look at mass murders while Obama was in office?  I noticed a pattern of failure and political misdirection.  Socialists never let a crisis go to waste.. even if they have to create one.

Fort Hood Memorial

Fort Hood Memorial

The Muslim who shot dozens of servicemen at the Fort Hood army base had been investigated by the FBI.  There were repeated tips submitted to the FBI about the murderer’s behavior and about his radical statements.  The FBI neither stopped the murderer nor stopped the murderer from bringing guns into a gun free zone.  Only the victims were disarmed in that gun free zone.  The Obama Administration called the murders “workplace violence.”

Police Search After Boston BombingThe Muslims who bombed the Boston Marathon were investigated by the FBI.  The FBI even received tips from foreign intelligence services about the Muslim immigrants.  The FBI didn’t stop the killers from building a bomb.  The FBI didn’t stop them from getting guns either.  We were told that the government would protect us.

sb murder

The Muslim couple who murdered their co-workers at the San Bernardino Christmas party last year had been investigated several times by the FBI.  Again, the FBI didn’t stop them from building bombs.  The FBI didn’t stop them from buying guns.  The FBI didn’t stop them from bringing guns and bombs into a gun free zone where their victims were unarmed.  After the attack, Socialists politicians called for more FBI background checks and to disarm civilians.

The Muslim who recently murdered 50 people in an Orlando bar had been investigated several times by the FBI.  Three separate civilian sources contacted the Feds to report the murderer’s suspicious behavior.  The FBI didn’t stop the murderer from buying guns.  The murderer brought guns into a gun free zone where only the victims were disarmed.  The Socialist politicians and liberal pundits said the problem wasn’t with a few murdering Muslims, but with one hundred million honest armed civilians.  Socialists politicians again called for more FBI background checks.  Socialists politicians called for a gun ban.

Pulse LGBT Nightclub Orlando

Pulse LGBT Nightclub

I noticed a pattern here.  The FBI let Muslim murderers slip through their fingers.  Gun free zones disarmed innocent victims, but did not disarm violent criminals.  Each mass murder was used as a political cause by the Socialists.  They asked for more FBI background checks.  They proposed that we disarm honest civilian gun owners who didn’t harm anyone.

This isn’t a new pattern.  As soon as Obama took office, the Obama Administration sent 2000 semi-automatic rifles to Mexican drug lords.  They wanted sensational headlines with innocent victims.  They were willing to sacrifice our lives for their political profit.  Maybe that is why, today, the FBI lets Muslim suspects slip free.  We know that the Obama Administration and their fellow Socialists will never let a crisis go to waste.. even if they have to create one.

Don’t ask to disarm innocent civilians until the criminals and the politicians are disarmed.

fight Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagPick Your Poison

Pick Your Poison, the new flavors of liberal kool-aid 2016 are out via Bernie and Hillary.

Liberal Kool-aid 2016 / Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2016.

More A.F.Branco Cartoons at Net Right Daily.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

‘CORRUPTION IN FULL FORCE’: No GOP Ballots in Harlem, Voter Claims [PHOTOS]


waving flagPosted on April 19, 2016

Screen Shot 2016-04-19 at 4.38.56 PM

Something fishy is going on in New York. Will be interesting to see the results. Do you think Republicans are being robbed?

The New York City Comptroller said hundreds of thousands may be dealing with polling problems on New York’s primary day.

CBS2’s Steve Langford reported Scott Stringer is going to audit the Board of Election due to the numerous polling problems across the city.

“Why is it alleged that 125,000 people have been removed from the voter rolls? Why did 60,000 people receive notices to vote that didn’t have the primary date? Why were people told they were in the wrong polling place time and time again?” Stringer said. “The next president of the United States could very easily be decided tonight and yet the incompetence of the Board of Election puts a cloud over these results.”

Many of the voting problems occurred early in the morning, 1010 WINS’ Carol D’Auria reported.

At one polling site at Carlton Avenue and Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, the site coordinator didn’t even bother to show up and it took about an hour-and-a-half to find a replacement so the poll could open.

Television and radio contributor John Burnett took to Twitter to voice his complaints, saying that in Harlem he was told there were no GOP ballots available.ny01 ny01B

ny02He said he was told he’d have to wait for delivery.

Other voters said they were plagued by registry issues. One woman said if your last name was at the end of the alphabet at her polling site in Windsor Terrace, you had to vote affidavit.

ny03

Mayor Bill de Blasio said in a statement he is supporting the comptroller’s audit.ny04

Guess Which Causes Detroit’s Satanic Event Will Benefit


waving flagPosted on July 27, 2015 by

cause of death

A self-described Satanic group held the “largest public satanic ceremony in history” on Saturday in Detroit as it unveiled a statue of the devil to a crowd of some 700 people.  The statue of Baphomet, the goat-headed version of Satan, shows the devil sitting on a throne looking all pagan and demonic as smiling children look on adoringly.

The group behind this 1-ton bronze monstrosity is The Satanic Temple. Organizers said the 9-foot-tall statue “is not only an unparalleled artistic triumph, but stands as a testament to plurality and the power of collective action.”

In other words, it’s a big honking finger in the eye of Christians, which is really what Satanism is all about.

The temple is fighting to get the hideous thing erected at the Arkansas State Capital next to a monument of the Ten Commandments.

What’s most interesting about this event isn’t the audacity of keeping the statue at a secret location in Detroit (I wonder how many major cities have statues of the devil kept at secret locations), and it’s not that 700 people are hate-filled, deluded or psychotic enough to have paid for tickets to this event. (The temple claims 200 registered members in Detroit.)

It’s not even the brazenness of The Satanic Temple’s ploy of positioning itself as a family-friendly cult. No, what I find most interesting are the political causes the temple proclaims support for on its own website. Leading among these are abortion (“reproductive rights”) and gay “marriage,” both of which have been in the news of late.

The temple also makes common cause with atheist groups when it says the statue’s unveiling “will serve as a call to arms from which we’ll kick off our largest fight to date in the name of individual rights to free exercise against self-serving theocrats,” meaning Christians.

satanicTemple

The Satanic Temple has something else in common with groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation in that they position themselves as outsiders from the religious mainstream who somehow still have religious rights that can be offended by Christians.

Gay “marriage” and abortion are also issues where critics have long noted an anti-Christian bent among proponents, so the Satanists’ interest is clear.

The anti-Christian movement in this country is broad and often well-disguised, being spread out over numerous cp 11institutions, groups and political issues. But the one thing they all have in common, from pro-abortionists to the outright Satanists, is a talent for lying.

Just take a look at Planned Parenthood and its massive PR counterattack in the past two weeks as two separate videos showed PP officials negotiating the sale of fetal tissue.

Every left-wing outlet in the mainstream media and the Internet has made a concerted effort to tell the public that Planned Parenthood is being harassed and the videos are faked, even though the doctors in the videos make themselves very clear and do not appear to be in any way coerced into talking to the actors posing as medical middlemen.how many body parts

To the degree that videos are used regularly by people on the Left and the Right to embarrass political opponents these days, it’s remarkable how staunchly indignant the Planned Parenthood supporters are that anyone would tape their personnel speaking freely about the organization’s practices. And all the spin from the Left is intended to cast Planned Parenthood as angelic victims being picked on by the evil pro-lifers.

The campaign is working, as Planned Parenthood’s allies in the California and federal governments are investigating the maker of the videos, even though the videos clearly contain evidence of possible crimes by the abortion organization that by rights should be investigated.

Don’t even get me started on the homosexual rights movement or the “separation of church and state” crowd.Big Gay Hate Machine

The Satanists planting a statue of the devil in Detroit is more than just an overt symptom of a long-festering disease in this country, it’s a crowning achievement.

Maybe The Satanic Temple’s support for gay “marriage,” abortion and church-state separation means the devil’s finally coming out of hiding.

freedom combo 2

Democrats’ ‘Progressive Agenda’ is Outright Communism


waving flagPosted by

URL Of the Original Posting Site: http://godfatherpolitics.com/22451/democrats-progressive-agenda-is-outright-communism/#dtl4wsSBLblhYjRB.

It must be so close they can taste it. 

It’s never been a secret that the Democrat agenda has been quietly driven by the philosophies of Karl Marx and every radical socialist who ever lit a fuse against the United States. With a long line of public figures who have idolized or modeled themselves after Alinsky, Mao, Lenin or Castro, the Democratic Party has been home to the despicably anti-American and their foolishly misguided followers.

Anybody who paid any attention to the party’s politics and had a modicum of historical knowledge could spot the connections. But leftists being leftists, the DP leadership has always tried to pretend otherwise because their hold on many of the low-information voters is all based on perceptions. Which is what makes it remarkable that the Progressive Agenda to Combat Income Inequality, a document put together by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, so clearly patterns itself after Communist Party and Socialist Party doctrine.

Even more remarkable is that de Blasio and others are trying to make this the official Democratic Party platform for the 2016 presidential election. The Democrats are calling the Progressive Agenda their “Contract With America,” which is as frightening as it is insulting.Liberalism a mental disorder 2 Party of Deciet and lies

Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America” was a stroke of political brilliance that helped pull together congressional conservatives to pass important legislation and help America get back on track.

The Progressive Agenda is aimed at turning us into something just shy of the Soviet Union.

All the hallmarks are there:

  • hike the minimum wage (c’mon, if it’s such a great idea, why not make it $100 per hour, guys?);
  • national paid family and sick leave;
  • pass laws to make it easier to force workers to unionize;
  • “immigration reform” to organize illegals;
  • refinance student debt;
  • expanding state brainwashing with mandatory pre-kindergarten, after-school and child-care programs;
  • increasing taxes on “the rich”; etc.Cloward Piven

De Blasio, who calls President Obama “too conservative” to lead a Progressive economic policy, said last week at the agenda’s rollout, “It’s time to take that energy and crystallize it into an agenda that will make a difference. We’ll be calling on leaders and candidates to address these issues, to stiffen their backbones, to be clear and to champion these progressive policies.”more evidence

Democrat officials had a variety of silly metaphors about cavalry and “meat on the bones” to use in praise of de Blasio’s manifesto. The most interesting remark, however, came from Rep. Charles Rangel, who talked about “revolution.”

Buzzword alert.

The Revolution, of course, was the crucible in which the United States was formed. But there’s a world of difference between the way the Founding Fathers meant it and the way modern Regressives mean it. 

  • The Founders meant to take back something that never belonged to the King in the first place: our independence.
  • Regressives mean to assert everyone’s dependence on government and take things from the public treasury that never have belonged to them. **Please see related historical record regarding this point**

To facilitate the fattening of their own purses, Progressive leaders will begin by taking away your rights. If you don’t believe that, then you are dangerously naive. Look at history. That’s always how “progressive revolutions” begin.

It’s already started here. Obama was the warmup act. Now we’ve got closet socialist Hillary, open socialist Bernie and B-string socialist Fauxcahontas (aka Elizabeth Warren), all eyeing the Oval Office. And leftists hope their Communist Manifesto, er, Progressive Agenda will pave the way.

Lurking in the background, supporting de Blasio’s agenda, is Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party and founder of the New Party. The openly socialist New Party, Chicago branch, once claimed a young Barack Obama as a member, something his flying monkeys have denied for years. De Blasio was executive director of the New Party’s New York branch.

The basis of his plan was a report by Nobel prize-winning Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz, who also held “teach-ins” at Occupy Wall Street. Stiglitz has accepted funding from billionaire George Soros, the ex-Nazi employee who helped fund Obama’s career and who has hosted fundraisers for Elizabeth Warren and donated to Hillary Clinton’s PAC. Stiglitz also sits on the boards of several Soros organizations, including one whose aim is to remake the global economy.

You start to see how the pieces fit together? Who says there aren’t any real-life conspiracies to destroy America? Oh, right, mostly the people involved in them.

waving flag**Related Historical Context**

Not Yours To Give

Davy Crockett on The Role Of Government

from: The Life of Colonel David Crockett

compiled by: Edward S. Elis (1884)

“Money with [Congressmen] 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.”

Introductory note by Peter Kershaw:

Davy Crockett served four terms in the U.S. Congress from 1827-1835. In 1835 he joined the Whig Party and ran a failed attempt for the Presidency. Immediately thereafter he departed his native Tennessee for Texas to secure the independence of the “Texicans.” He lost his life at the battle of the Alamo and forever secured his legendary status in history as “king of the wild frontier.” The following story was recounted to Edward Elis by an unnamed Congressman who had served with Colonel Crockett in the U.S. House of Representatives.

…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. It seemed to be 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 a speech 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 argument to prove that Congress has no power under the Constitution 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.’

“Mr. Speaker, 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 a few votes and was lost. Like many others, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move for 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 franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table. I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what the 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: “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 the 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. 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 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 fortunate 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 (decisive argument: a decisive blow or argument)…. 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 this 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, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I have 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.’ “The farmer 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 defeating 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 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 seek. 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-bye. 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 that day in gentlemanly friendship and amity.’ “It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met that man. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, 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 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. In fact I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifest before.’

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached the home of Mr. Bunce, 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 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 you sir, if everyone 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 me 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 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 my friend Horatio Bunce 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 the 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 weeks’ 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 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 those Congressmen 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.”

OARLogo Picture6

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: