 |
| Summer 2000 | Volume 7, Number
5 |
GORE’S
FLAT EARTH THEORY
Gore Wants YOU to Scale Back YOUR Standard of Living
By Cathie Adams, president of Texas Eagle Forum
cathieadams@texaseagle.org
Democrat Al Gore may be the scariest Presidential candidate Americans have ever faced. His book,
Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, written in 1992 and reissued for the 2000 campaign, is prophetic of the United Nation’s Kyoto Protocol written five years later that deals with the issue of global warming. Gore went to Kyoto, Japan to instruct the American delegation to be “flexible” which meant to acquiesce to the global agenda that is to
erase national sovereignty and redistribute American wealth around the globe.
Global religionist and author, M. Scott Peck, captures the essence of Gore’s book: “The way we need to
change to insure the survival of our grandchildren…brilliantly written, prophetic, even holy….” If a Republican had written such a book, he would be mocked for being prophetic or holy, but using the typical double standard, the anti-tolerant, anti-free speech, anti-free thought, politically correct critics are mute about Gore.
Presidential hopeful Gore wants the environment to become the “central organizing
principle” for the United States like it has been for the UN since 1992 when it met in Rio de Janeiro to create the Climate Change Treaty. That means, “embarking on an all-out effort to use EVERY policy, EVERY tactic and strategy, EVERY plan and course of action—to use, in short, EVERY means to halt the destruction of the environment and to preserve and nurture our ecological system.” Anything short of this Gore calls “appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle, and a
wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” As President of the United States, Gore wants to head “a new worldwide bureaucracy” that he claims will be necessary “to manage the unimaginable problems caused by massive social and political upheavals, mass migrations, and the continuing damage of the global environment by civilization itself.”
While global warming theorists claim that greenhouse gases are causing the earth to warm, computer models cannot factor in wind currents, ocean currents or solar activity in order to prove the theory. Furthermore, about 97% of all carbon dioxide is water vapor; only a small fraction is produced when fossil fuels are burned. Yet, Gore intimates that carbon dioxide production may increase solar intensity, which is like claiming that too many people stirring their coffee at the same time cause tornadoes.
Gore claims in his book to be a Christian, but he wholeheartedly embraces the theory of evolution. Gore’s focal point of history is not the “His-story” of Jesus Christ according to Christian theology, but it is the history of man evolving with global climate change. He writes:
“…our origins in the primate family placed a limit on the ability of the birth canal to accommodate babies with ever-larger heads.”
He commingles the spiritual and political with great abandon, and writes about the earth as if it has a soul and spirit. He questions “one’s relationship to the sky” in his chapter entitled “Buddha’s Breath” claiming “we bathe our lungs in a homogeneous sample of that same air…that was also breathed by Buddha…Jesus, Moses, Mohammed—as well as Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.”
Steeped in Eastern religious cult references, Gore quotes the Hindu teaching that, “The earth is our mother, and we are all her children,” and gurus who claim that the, “Earth teaches us patience, love; Air teaches us mobility, liberty; Fire teaches us warmth, courage; Sky teaches us equality, broad-mindedness; Water teaches us purity, cleanliness.” Quoting the Baha’i cult, he writes, “Man is organic with the world. His inner life molds the environment and is itself deeply affected by it.”
“The people’s right to freely enjoy public property” is preeminent while Gore
downplays personal property rights. It reminds me of the “public property” I toured in China that the communists stole because equity demanded that the landowner’s property become “public property” for the common good.
Gore’s radical views about tropical rain forests and indigenous peoples, however, do not affect his personal investments. His family’s quarter of a million dollars’ worth of Occidental stock and a potential for 1.4 billion barrels of oil worth about $35 billion on international markets in Columbia exposes his insincerity. As Vice President he has favored Occidental Petroleum (founded by Armand Hammer, a communist sympathizer who bragged about having Gore and his late father “in my back pocket”) against the U’wa tribe in Columbia. And he leased property in Tennessee to Union Zinc for mining against his stated principles. In response, Americans should send Al Gore the mining engineers’ bumper stickers that state:
Earth First, and then we’ll mine the other planets.
VP Gore wants to pick up where eugenics promoter and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger left off. In his book, he compliments family planning in Thailand that includes “balloon-blowing contests with condoms, the distribution of condoms by traffic policemen on New Year’s Eve in what he calls a ‘cops and rubbers’ operation, schemes to give health care insurance payments to taxi drivers who sell a quota of condoms, to mention only a few.” We can expect Gore to embrace the human genome project as he has already embraced “The Great Genetic Treasure Map” of plants that he calls “centers of diversity.”
The bottom line is that Gore believes that America’s economic successes are the reason for poverty in the Third World, and that the way to correct it is to
scale back American’s standard of living, mandate abortion-on-demand at taxpayer expense, and embrace government central planning of all land thereby erasing personal property rights because he says: “We are, in effect, bulldozing the Gardens of Eden.” He advocates “A Global Marshall Plan” that “combines large-scale, long-term, carefully targeted financial aid to developing nations, massive efforts to design and then transfer to poor nations the new technologies needed for sustained economic progress, a worldwide program to stabilize world population, and
binding commitments by the industrial nations to accelerate their own transition to an environmentally responsible pattern of life.”
There are two ways to insure an Al Gore Presidency so that he can make the environment America’s “central organizing principle” implemented via “A Global Marshall Plan.” First, we can decide that Gov. George W. Bush does not inspire us like former President Ronald Reagan did and thus refuse to work for him and the entire Republican ticket. Secondly, we can vote for a third party candidate. Either way, Gore becomes President.
The U.S. does NOT need more bread-and-circuses Clinton/Gore government. Gore would bring the sand of the Coliseum, but NOT the marble of the Senate to the American republic. The moral pollution that Gore promises might be the final blow to our great republic.
Let us stand shoulder-to-shoulder to elect Gov. George W. Bush and retire the Clinton/Gore circus. With integrity, let us take back
our White House and put our nation’s moral character on the road to recovery. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less than America as a light on a hill that cannot be hidden.
WOMEN AND POLITICS
Reconsidering the 19TH Amendment
Condensed from an article by Columnist Ann Coulter, Human Events, 2/14/00
According to a recent poll of women voters commissioned by "Lifetime
Television" (Television for Women) women are complaining again. Over a third
of the respondents say none of the presidential candidates are addressing
their concerns. According to the summary, the top concerns of half or more
of the respondents are these: "insufficient effort to cure breast cancer,"
gun control, medical benefits, childcare, the rising cost of college
education, the connection between pollution and health risks, violence
against women and equal pay.
This could only be the poll results of people who have nothing to do with
the creation of wealth. They sit home waiting for their husbands to bring
home the money, or toil away at little jobs dreamed up to assuage the egos
of bourgeois women living in the suburbs. Consequently, the typical liberal
woman's political calculus is based on budgeting, not earning. They have no
idea how the money materializes. But they have lots of opinions on how to
spend it. They claim to be Republicans, but they are no more Republican than
Bill Clinton. In fact, they adore Bill Clinton.
As a class, women have never borne collective responsibility.for electing
Republican Presidents. In every presidential election since 1944 but one
(1964), men went for the Republican candidate. Even in 1980, when men voted
for Ronald Reagan over Carter by 53% to 38%, women voters went about equally
with President Jimmy Carter as with Reagan.
What's a Republican presidential candidate to do?
First of all, Republicans should recognize that they can't fit a round peg
in a square hole. It is impossible for a candidate to obtain the votes of
the liberal women topping the "Lifetime TV" poll without becoming Bill
Clinton, in which case, they will lose the votes of the people with a
capacity to engage in linear thinking and grasp logical connections.
Consider this item: 70% of the women polled in the "Lifetime Television"
survey claimed the country is not making "enough of an effort to find a cure
for breast cancer."
Here are some facts: Men get prostate cancer at a rate of 147 cases per
100,000 men. Women get breast cancer at a rate of 113 per 100,000 women. The
mortality rate for breast cancer and prostate cancer is about the same. The
federal government spends roughly four times as much on breast cancer
research as prostate research.
In a further moment of self-interest, 85% of women in the "Lifetime" poll
said they think discrimination against women in the workplace is still a
problem, but only 57% think there is any problem with race relations. I love
liberal women.
So the first point is: Liberal suburban soccer moms are impervious to logic.
One cannot cut taxes and reduce the size of government while simultaneously
trying to satisfy women kvetching about insufficient funding for child care
and breast cancer research. The good news is, one stiff November snowstorm,
and the "Lifetime TV" women aren't going to bother to vote anyway.
But moreover, Republican candidates ought to note that Reagan got more women
to vote for him than George Bush or Bob Dole did. Reagan also got about 40%
more of the men's vote than did Carter. Oh, yeah, Reagan won. Twice. He did
it by being a hard-right conservative on social issues, which is the way to
win over the maximum number of women voters who would ever consider voting
for a Republican in the first place.
Women voters tend to be either very conservative or very liberal. And jaded
feminists are never going to vote for a Republican anyway. But Republican
politicians regularly sacrifice the votes of the women who might vote
Republican, simply to persuade bitter suburban harridans to hate them a
little less. Polls may indicate that the average woman voter is more
liberal than the average male voter, but that is a statistical average. The
soft liberal "average" among women establishes only that there is a larger
chunk of liberals among women than men. It doesn't mean there is actually a
single woman, much less a vast cohort, that resembles some political
composite of Hillary Clinton and Phyllis Schlafly.
It may be that women tend to fall on the political extremes because women
are not much given to compromise and appeasement. (As C.S. Lewis said, if
your dog bit the neighbor's child, would you prefer to apologize to the
woman of the house or the man of the house?) Or the political extremes among
women may be the evidence of the dwindling tradition of women as keepers of
religious faith. Some women have faith in the Supreme Being, some place
their faith in gun control.
Whatever the reason, the issues that resonate with the largest chunk of
conservative women are the moral issues, not fiscal issues. And, unlike the
"Lifetime TV" poll respondents, these women won't forget to vote.
LET BOYS BE BOYS, NOT CRIMINALS-IN-TRAINING
By Columnist Kathleen Parker, 4/14/00
By today's zero-tolerance standards of child's play, my brother and I both
should have been sent to the electric chair decades ago. In fact, every
child in our neighborhood and at school would qualify today as a juvenile
delinquent at least, a potentially homicidal maniac on average.
We played war; we dug trenches and foxholes; we screamed and cried, raided
and rioted, bombed each other with rotten grapefruit, torpedoed with
oranges, fake-killed and fake-died, fell from trees, crashed bikes and wiped
out on gravelly roads. We pillaged and plundered until the sun set and a
dozen fathers whistled time for supper.
We didn't die from these activities, nor did we kill anyone else. It is more
likely that these dastardly playtime drills-followed by parentally invoked
rituals-kept our little riotous souls in check. Instead of hurting people,
we pretended to. Instead of suppressing anger and frustration, we acted out
confusing emotions in innocent play. Instead of toying with real guns, we
cocked our fingers and shot imaginary bullets.
Just like the four kindergarteners at Wilson Elementary School in
Sayerville, NJ, who were suspended from school a few months ago for
aggressive behavior. For pointing fingers and shouting "bang" at their
playmates in a playground game of cops and robbers, four boys ages 5 and 6
were deemed dangerous and sent home for three days.
The lunatics don't have to take over the asylum anymore because apparently
we've lost our minds.
To the relief of the few thinking adults hiding in bunkers here and there,
the school's action prompted some protest, though not nearly enough. The
American Civil Liberties Union-often estranged from common sense-rallied to
protect the boys' rights to free speech. A few child development experts
expressed outrage.
But a discomforting number of parents applauded the school's response,
saying the boys' behavior scared some of the other children. In the telling
words of one mother: "You've got to teach your kids to watch what they say,
especially in school."
Back in my 50s childhood, no child would have dared admit being scared of
other children playing what was then normal. But today is different.
Children carry real guns to school; children kill and wound other children
in what used to be a safe environment.
However, I would like to say as loudly as possible, today is different in
other ways too. I'm not talking about the availability of guns. Most of us
World War II babies had guns and knew how to shoot without missing. I'm not
talking about violent media, either. We watched many a cowboy or Indian
cruelly dispatch an enemy.
What's different is that our parents and teachers worked together without
undue interference from bureaucrats, social workers and lawyers. A kid who
misbehaved in school was dealt with promptly, first by the teacher and then
by the dads who whistled at dinner time.
Today we've emasculated teachers and evicted fathers. Most of the boys who've recently carried guns to school had histories that were ignored largely
because we don't allow teachers and administrators to "handle" the bad
apples. Instead we leave them rotting in the barrel until someone gets hurt.
Or, as in this case, we overact to innocent play.
Our confusion might be eased if we put real discipline back in schools and
fathers back in homes. Then might we relax and let the good boys play.
FIREARMS UNDER INCREASING ATTACK
Constitutional rights threatened
By U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) from his 4/23/00 weekly column
The constitutional rights of all Americans continue to be threatened.
Unfortunately, this election year has shades of past years when the
president and the anti-gun lobby were able to neutralize many key gun rights
advocates and back-down congressional leadership.
I agree with our founding fathers and others who assert that the right to
keep and bear arms is a key cornerstone right that acts as an insurance
policy for all other liberties. The problem is that this right is being
eroded at the edges, and attempts to compromise have left us in a position
where the basic principle has been nearly erased.
The arguments of those who oppose gun rights make no sense at all. New gun
laws have gone on the book just about every decade over the last century,
and at the same time, gun related crime incidents have increased. In fact,
in places where gun laws are most strict, gun crime and violence is most
rampant.
One only need to ask the question, "Would you feel safer in New York City or
Washington, D.C., where guns are prohibited, or in rural Texas where there
is a concealed carry law or in Vermont which has no gun regulation?" Facts
do indeed tend to show that an armed society is indeed a polite society.
In fact, Dr. John Lott, a Ph.D. law professor at Yale University, has
completed impressive studies that show, in his words, "more guns equal less
crime." Certainly it is true that gun laws have never had any measurably
positive impact on crime. In fact, in countries that have recently undergone
gun confiscation, violent crime rates have skyrocketed. It is simply common
sense to suggest that a murderer or felon is not going to be deterred by the
fact that in the commission of such a crime he or she will also have to
violate a gun control law.
Gun control laws do nothing to reduce crime. That is why they are so
insidious. Those who push these laws either have to be completely ignorant
of this fact, or they must be motivated by some other agenda. It stands to
reason that the latter option is the more truthful.
The reason gun control advocates will never run out of new proposals is
precisely because they realize full well that gun control cannot limit
crime. Thus, they will always be back with what they call "just one more
reasonable regulation." We should not be arguing for further enforcement of
existing gun laws. Instead we should be putting these laws on trial.
It has been said that the very definition of insanity is to continue using
the same means while expecting a different result. The means of controlling
crime by controlling guns is a dismal failure. The idea that we should
continue this policy is absurd. We should ask the gun control advocates why
it is that the gun control act, the automatic weapon ban and the Brady bill
have not proven to be the panacea they promised when proposing these bills.
I oppose gun laws on constitutional grounds, but I often wonder why those
who say they want to be reasonable do not ask the gun grabbers straight away
for some evidence that their approach works. Or, why they do not demand
evidence that a new proposal will bear the promised results of cutting
crime. Without some measurement of the effects of gun laws how can anybody
tell if they are been successful? The administration simply trumps up its
statistics after-the-fact.
Actually, I realize why the gun grabbers are never called onto the carpet in
such a way. Simply, those who refuse to stand up for constitutional rights
like to say they are compromising, but the fact is they are cowering. It is
one thing to be a coward with one's own life, but it is entirely immoral to
run in fear when it comes to defending the constitutional rights we are
sworn to uphold.
MRS. GARNER IS LEAVING
27-year teacher cites loss of local control for quitting
By Donna Garner
What has forced a Texas public school teacher like myself to leave a high
school where I have spent the better part of my 27 years of teaching? Why
would I leave a school district where I have invested huge amounts of time
and energy? Why would I decide to teach in a private school for much less
pay? The answer can be summed up in one phrase-the loss of local control.
At my high school next year, every English teacher is to follow a syllabus
that is aligned with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), a
standards document which is replete with performance-based projects (e.g.,
"create, present, test, and revise a project and analyze a response, using
data-gathering techniques such as questionnaires, group discussions, and
feedback forms.create media products to include a billboard, cereal box,
short editorial, and a three-minute documentary or print ad to engage
specific audiences). At our school, we English teachers have to sign an
affidavit-like statement which forces teachers to teach exactly what is on
the syllabus at exactly the same time-even using the same tests.
I have written and produced my own grammar packets (www.readbygrade3.com). Thanks to the Internet, people all over the
world are now able to access my free packets; even missionaries are using
the packets to teach their children English grammar. My grammar packets
require at least six months of intense study; the verb packet alone takes
ten weeks of instruction. The other English I teachers at my high school
have decided that next year prepositions, verbs, nouns, pronouns, and
subject/verb agreement must be taught in 4 ½ weeks. If I were to stay at my
high school, I would be forced to discard my grammar packets and teach in
lock-step with the other teachers.
I am not being critical of my fellow English teachers. In order to make room
for all the 99 TEKS elements, many of which require students to spend huge
chunks of time producing performance-based projects, Texas teachers are
being forced to quit teaching the basics of grammar, spelling, and
composition. To make room for all the burdensome TEKS requirements, teachers
are being forced to flit through the numerous elements without being able to
spend sufficient time to bring their students to the mastery level.
Mastering basic skills takes time; it simply cannot be rushed. If I thought
my ninth-grade students knew basic grammar and could write well, I would
love nothing better than to teach more literature. However, each year the
students' writing and speaking skills grow weaker. I also teach Spanish I,
and my classes are full of students who do not know a verb from a noun. I
have to spend hours teaching English grammar before my students can begin to
learn Spanish.
Public schools are captivated with the idea of using technology, the
Internet, and web sites. The idea of having a common English I syllabus
posted on the school web site sound like a good idea, but in reality the
document is going to bring terrible pressure to teachers. If a teacher
needed to spend more time on verbs instead of teaching what was on the
syllabus, all it would take would be for one parent to complain to the
administrator, "Why is Mrs. Garner teaching verbs when the syllabus says she
is supposed to be teaching mythology?" Thus, a curriculum document and
technology are going to drive the curriculum instead of the individual
academic needs of the students.
Back in July 1997, a group of teachers with able assistance of qualified
reading experts, wrote the Texas Alternate Document (TAD)-(www.htcomp.net/tad) for English/Language Arts/Reading. When we
wrote the TAD, we deliberately avoided mandating methodology; and we wrote
into our document those elements which we felt could be taught in a year's
time with enough time left over for teachers to teach their own favorite
units. We also did not prescribe the order of introduction of elements. The
only place where we put any required sequence was in the area of direct,
systematic instruction of reading; and we based our document on the
empirical, peer-reviewed reading research. On that one spot in the TAD, we
required that phonemic awareness should be taught first; but through the
rest of the TAD, we left the order of presentation to the discretion of the
teachers. Over the course of a year, they could decide on the sequence of
course content based upon the individual needs of their students.
With the intrusion of the TEKS and the TAAS, Texas teachers are unable to
consider the academic needs of their students. Many Texas schools have
survived the education fads because experienced teachers ("dinosaurs")
resisted the push toward outcomes-based education, block scheduling,
year-round schools, integrated curriculum, etc. Unfortunately, many of the
dinosaurs have decided to quit resisting. They have decided to teach the top
10-15% of the student body who are in the Advanced Placement (AP) program.
The dinosaurs would rather spend their time targeting their students toward
the explicit AP standards rather than trying to shoot at a moving target,
the TEKS. A large number of dinosaurs are willing to wash their hands of the
85-90% of the student body who will be left with a school-to-work (STW),
inferior education rather than a well-rounded, classical, liberal arts
education.
Many of the dinosaurs want to teach the AP students because those students
typically do not have serious discipline problems, and AP students are
usually motivated to learn. Someone ought to ask the dinosaurs this
question, "Just how supportive of the STW plan would you be if you were
required to teach the lower-level students?" Just how supportive of STW
would you be if your own child were to be educated as a 'worker bee?'"
What a school should really do is to require the dinosaur teachers, who are
supposed to be the best teachers in the school, to teach the
hardest-to-teach students; but that is not what usually happens. Many
veteran teachers are backing STW because it gets the hard-to-teach students
completely out of their way. Meanwhile, the lower-level students will have
their curriculum "dumbed down" which will temporarily make them much happier
and easier to discipline. Wait until these students have to face the real
world without their having the foundational knowledge necessary to face life
's problems. At that point, I doubt that the "worker bees" will be very
thrilled with their public school education.
I have spent the better part of my life trying to reform the public schools,
and I am grieved at what I see happening to them. I have done my best, but
my best doesn't seem to be good enough. The current attitude in public
schools seems to be: "If you can't play on the team, you need to get off the
team." I have decided to get off the team, but that does not stop my heart
from grieving over the damage that is being done to Texas students. The
reality is that the majority of the students in this country go to the
public schools, and it is the public schools that real education reform must
take place if we are to see our country remain a world leader.
BUSH AND THE JUDICIARY
Pro-life, pro-family Texans were disturbed to learn that George W. Bush has
appointed a liberal Democrat supporter of the Houston Gay and Lesbian
Political Caucus and also of Planned Parenthood, Martha Hill Jamison, to the
164th Court in Houston. Judge Jamison is the daughter of former Supreme
Court chief justice and unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate John Hill, a
powerful Texas Democrat. She was appointed to a bench vacated by a Democrat.
Many are questioning why Gov. Bush would appoint a former Democrat (she
recently "converted" to the Republican Party) and an apparent liberal at
that, when there are many conservative Republicans who could easily have
filled that slot.
Source: Republican National Coalition for Life, 4/20/00
THANK YOU JESSE HELMS!
Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) pledged to block any so called arms-control
agreements that President Clinton negotiates with Russia in these waning
months of his Administration. The pledge comes as reports continue to swell
throughout Washington that Clinton is negotiating with Russia and is
prepared to sign an agreement that would prevent a future U.S. president
from developing a real missile defense system to protect Americans from
missile attack. Clinton wants this agreement to build a so-called "legacy"
for his presidency, but he appears willing to do it at the expense of U.S.
security. This is not a new strategy for Clinton. Helms is in a powerful
position as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his bold
statement is a warning not only to Clinton, but to Russia too. There is a
moral imperative for the U.S. to protect the American people and deploy a
missile defense system as soon as possible. Because of Clinton, we have
already wasted eight precious years.
Source: Campaign for Working Families fax, 4/27/00
SENATE HOLDS HEARING ON FETAL STEM CELL RESEARCH
"Is an embryo human or property?" was the ringing question asked by Senator
Sam Brownback (R-KS) at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on April
26. No one replied. The hearing was conducted by Senator Arlen Spector
(R-PA), in preparation for a move to drop the ban on federal funding
research using tissue from human embryos (S2105). Sen. Brownback made a
strong case against conducting research on those who cannot give consent.
However, the pro-life forces were outgunned in the battle for the media by
the other side's witnesses. Actor Christopher Reeve made a plea for the
research which he believes will restore his ability to walk; and a beautiful
young woman suffering from Lou Gehrig's Diseases made a dramatic appeal.
Anyone who opposes the use of the 100,000 embryos already frozen in storage
across America, was made to seem a cruel ogre who want to deny healing to
Hollywood icons.
Source: EF News & Notes, 4/28/00
MEXICO THREATENS TO SUE ARIZONA RANCHERS
Mexico has hired U.S. lawyers to sue Arizona ranchers who take migrants into
custody-often at gunpoint-and turn them over to the U.S. Border Patrol.
Mexico Foreign Secretary Rosario Green says she is prepared to take
"whatever action necessary" to halt alleged human-right violations against
Mexicans on private land near Douglas, AZ. She has also invited a UN monitor
to investigate the issue. The Arizona cattle ranchers have started armed
patrols to stem the flow of thousands of illegal immigrants across their
land each day. Ranchers say the immigrants damage fences, steal food and
vehicles and frighten their families. John Dawson, director of the U.S.
State Department's Office of Mexican Affairs, says the ranchers appear to be
within their rights, but "what's legal and smart, as well as appropriate,
are two different things."
Source: USA TODAY, 5/3/00
QUOTE OF THE MONTH
"Whenever there is a tragedy involving gun use, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, the
gun-control lobby and the news media seize it as another opportunity to
exploit the emotions of uninformed American people for political gain.
Unfortunately, most Americans don't have the foggiest notion of why the
Framers of the Constitution, through the Second Amendment, guaranteed our
right to keep and bear arms."
Columnist Walter Williams
FOUNDING FATHER QUOTE
"Hence bad examples of youth are more rare in America, which must be a
comfortable consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that
serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated,
but respected and practiced."
Benjamin Franklin in a pamphlet entitled Information to Those Who Would
Remove to America, written for Europeans who were considering coming to
America.
|
© 2000, |
Texas Eagle Forum
P.O. 795354
Dallas, TX 75379
(972) 250-0734
|
|