I read this article by Rick Reilly several years back and could not hold back the tears.  Joe Delaney’s sacrifice of his own life for two young boys displays the heroic sacrificial love so necessary in today’s pragmatic age.  Joe did what he knew was right because it was right and did not count the cost.  I know of other such men and women and am proud to be associated with them.  Men and women of character and principle are rare, but they are worth their weight in gold.  No, on second thought, they have no price.  What would you do if confronted in this situation?   Would you pragmatically—weigh the cost/benefit ratios, determine what the crowd was doing, consult your situational ethics manual?  Real heroes like Joe Delaney follow their heart and do what they know is right.

Pastor Robert Dickie was confronted with this choice a couple of years ago.  Seeing a young boy drowning off a raft in a Michigan lake—the mid-50’s heart patient swam 40 plus yards to save him.  Pastor had never met this boy and many other able bodied men witnessed the same thing, but did not jump in.  Something in Pastor Bob’s makeup compelled him to jump in regardless of the risk and danger—what was it?   Bob was exhausted from the 40 yard swim sprint, but held onto the boy with one hand and backstroked with the other hand.  Many people were screaming from the shore, but no one came to help.  Bob said he was 25 yards out and could not go on.  What would you do?  Do you let the boy drown and save your life?   Bob prayed for strength and vowed that they would live or die together.  What seemed like an eternity later and after a hundred plus more strokes - after he felt he couldn’t go on, they made it to shore.  The family grabbed their child and took off.   Bob was all alone exhausted from the ordeal and yet elated.  No, Bob will probably never have his name on the front page of People magazine, but he is a hero to me.  Joe Delaney and Robert Dickie II have that special something that all real heroes have—when confronted with a situation where someone must lead, they jump.

Rick Reilly, a senior writer for Sports Illustrated, has been voted National Sportswriter of the Year eight times.  Joe Delaney ran for over 1000 yards in his first year in the NFL for the Kansas City Chiefs.  Here is Rick Reilly’s article:

Why in creation did Joe Delaney jump into that pit full of water that day?

Why in the world would the AFC's best young running back try to save three drowning boys when he himself couldn't swim?

Nobody -- not his wife, not his mother -- had ever seen him so much as dog-paddle. A year and a half earlier, when he went to the Pro Bowl in Hawaii as the AFC's starting halfback and Rookie of the Year, he never set even a pinkie toe in the ocean or the pool. "Never had," says his wife, Carolyn, who'd known Joe since they were both seven. "In all my years, I never had seen him swim."

So why? Why did the 24-year-old Kansas City Chief try to save three boys he didn't know with a skill he didn't have?

He'd been sitting in the cool shade of a tree on a tar-bubbling afternoon at Chennault Park, a public recreation area in Monroe, La., when he heard voices calling, "Help! Help!" He popped up like a Bobo doll and sprinted toward the pit.

What made Delaney that kind of person? Why did he mow that lonely woman's lawn when he was back home in Haughton, La., rich as he was? Why did he check in on that old man every day he was in town? Why did he show up on the Haughton streets one day with a bag full of new shoes and clothes for kids whose names he'd never heard?

Why could he never think of anything that he wanted for himself? Why didn't he even make a Christmas list? The man never cashed a paycheck in his life. He would throw his checks on top of the TV for his wife. "Don't you want nothing for yourself?" Carolyn would ask Joe.

"Nah," he'd say. "You just take care of you and the girls."

"Nothing?"

"Well, if you could give me a little pocket change for the week, I'd appreciate it."

Why didn't he ask somebody else to help those three kids that day? After all, there were hundreds of people at the park, and not another soul dived into that pit. Nobody but Delaney, one guy who shouldn't have.

The boys in that pit were struggling to stay afloat. They were two brothers -- Harry and LeMarkits Holland, 11 and 10, respectively -- and a cousin, Lancer Perkins, 11. Of course, LeMarkits was always with Harry. He idolized his big brother. A water park adjacent to Chennault was staging a big promotion with free admission that day, and the boys had wandered over to the pit and waded into the water. Like Delaney, they couldn't swim.

So much of it doesn't make sense. Why hadn't the pit -- a huge rain-filled hole that was left after the dirt had been dug out and used to build a water slide -- been fenced off from the public? Who knew that four feet from the edge of the water the hole dropped off like a cliff to about 20 feet deep?

LeMarkits has said that he remembers the water filling his lungs, the sensation of being pulled to the cold bottom, when all of a sudden a huge hand grabbed his shoulder and heaved him out of the deep water. Delaney dived for the other two boys, sinking below the surface. Folks along the bank waited for him to come up, but he never did. Harry and Lancer drowned with him.

As much as you might hope that LeMarkits has done something with the gift Delaney gave him, so far he hasn't. In an interview with the Philadelphia Daily News two years ago, LeMarkits said he has been tortured by the thought that he got to live and Harry didn't. He said he made his mom sell Harry's bike, bed and toys. He even burned Harry's clothes, as if fire could burn his brother from his heart. But it never did. Thirty years old now, LeMarkits got out of jail in May after serving time for distribution of cocaine. There's still time for him to do something wonderful with the life Delaney gave him. After all, Delaney was doing wonderful things with the one he gave up.

He was buried on the Fourth of July, 20 years ago. A telegram from President Reagan was read at the memorial service. The Presidential Citizens Medal was awarded posthumously. Three thousand people came to his funeral. A park in Haughton was named after him. No Chiefs player has worn number 37 since. The 37 Forever Foundation, a nonprofit group in Kansas City, honors him to this day by providing free swimming lessons to inner-city kids.

"I wish they'd had that for Joe and me when we were kids," Carolyn says glumly. She thinks of her Joe every day. She can't help it. Their three daughters and four grandkids remind her of him constantly. There is a pause. "I never thought we wouldn't grow old together."

She's only been on two dates since Joe died. Twenty years, two dates. "Why should I?" she says. "I just keep comparing them to Joe, and they can't stand up. Nobody in the world is like my Joe."

Anyway, the point is, next time you're reading the sports section and you're about half-sick of DUIs and beaten wives, put it down for a second and remember Joe Delaney, who, in that splinter of a moment, when a hero was needed, didn't stop to ask why.

Real heroes inspire, teach, and draw out the hero in others.  When your moment of destiny arrives, will you watch, blame others, or jump in?  When you feel like life is not worth the struggle and everyone has sold out.  Remember the heroes like Joe Delaney and Pastor Robert L. Dickie - people who live their ideals and are willing to die for them.  Pascal, the French philosopher/mathematician had a saying, “The heart has its reasons that the mind knows nothing about.”   My message for today is simple and yet extremely rare, “The world is drowning in untruth, strife and pain—it’s time to jump in.” 

Is there anyone else sick and tired of the continuous increases in our taxes?  The average American works past July 4^th before they get to keep their first penny of earnings!  Our founding fathers would be outraged for two important reasons: first, why we let it happen and second, why we haven’t done anything about it?  Does anyone honestly think the answer is to give more funds to the government to take care of our needs?  If you do, let me share with you one of the better documented cases of taxation producing results opposite of intentions.  President Lyndon Baines Johnson was an influential president with a large ego.  Driven by a desire to leave an enduring legacy, President Johnson declared a national "War on Poverty” with an objective of a “total victory” for his Great Society.  By its very definition “war” entails the use of violence and we should be concerned when violence is used against someone’s private property to ameliorate someone else’s living conditions.  Economically speaking, anytime poverty is rewarded—more people will become dependent on aid, where they once were dependent on their personal efforts.  Michael Tanner documents:

Since the War on Poverty began in 1965, federal, state, and local governments have spent more than $5.4 trillion fighting poverty in this country.  How much money is $5.4 trillion?  It is 70% more than it cost to fight World War II.  For $5.4 trillion you could purchase the assets of all the Fortune 500 corporations and all the farmland in the United States.  Yet . . . the poverty rate is actually higher today [1996] than it was in 1965.

Talk about a major investment with a negative return!  Only the government could afford an investment like this.  Would any conventional business be capable of ignoring the investment vs. return on something of this magnitude?  Our politicians ought to accept responsibility and apologize to the American people for their short sighted programs.  The problem with our government is not that it makes mistakes, but that it rarely learns from them.  The more government promises, the more they have to take our property to pay the bills.  I am genuinely concerned every time I hear a politician promise some government benefit.  I know that means more moms off to the work place to pay for the politician’s campaign promise.  Richard Pipes conclusions on the alleged “War on Poverty” in his book Property and Freedom, is biting, on the mark and near impossible to describe any better:

Between the launch of the Great Society in 1965 and 1993, the percentage of the population living below the poverty line rose from about 12.5 percent to 15 percent.  This has occurred during a period when welfare spending increased from under $50 billion annually to $324 billion.  The reason for this unexpected outcome is that welfare fosters dependency and dependency promotes poverty.  This trend is most obvious in the case of the program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children.  Originally conceived as a way of assisting widowed mothers, its main effect has been to encourage unmarried women to have children, who become government wards.  Thus, whereas in 1960 only 5.3 percent of births occurred out of wedlock, in 1990 this figure rose to 28 percent; among blacks, it was 65.2 percent.  Ninety-two percent of families on welfare have no father present.  Bountiful welfare, welfare which does not confine itself to meeting emergencies and situations out of the recipients’ control but attempts artificially to provide them (in FDR’s words) with a “comfortable living,” is not only injurious to the principle of property, an indispensable adjunct of freedom, but self-defeating.

The right to property in and of itself does not guarantee civil rights and liberties.  But historically speaking, it has been the single most effective device for ensuring both, because it creates an autonomous sphere in which, by mutual consent, neither the state nor society can encroach: by drawing a line between the public and the private, it makes the owner co-sovereign, as it were.  Hence, it is arguably more important than the right to vote.  The weakening of property rights by such devices as wealth distribution for purposes of social welfare and interference with contractual rights for the sake of “civil rights” undermines liberty in the most advanced democracies even as the peacetime accumulation of wealth and the observance of democratic procedures convey the impression that all is well.

The more money we throw at poverty the more we take people’s self respect—making the problem worse than when we started.  I love people too much to take their belief in themselves’ and their ability to solve their own problems.  Yes, we may struggle at times, but we will learn and grow through the process.  Richard Epstein writes, “With a tax, the government takes property in the narrowest sense of the term, ending up with ownership and possession of that which was once in private hands. . . Taxation is prima facie a taking of private property.”  We must arrest the tax creep going on in American society.  To boil a frog, you slowly increase the temperature.  The frog will adjust to the slight increases and never attempt to jump out of the pan.  In the same way, we have been slow boiled by rising taxes.  Remember, the revolutionary war was started on a tax of less than 1%.  It is time to massively reduce taxes, just like a company would reduce their budget after a failed business line.  The welfare state has failed, socialism has failed, and communism has failed.  The only successful economic system is free enterprise tempered with Judeo-Christian justice, charity and love.  Winston Churchill said, “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”  I will take a productive people with the inequalities of wealth associated with people’s different gifts, skills, and work ethic over the envy and laziness associated with a culture that demands equality through coercion.   The welfare state taxes societies’ achievers to give to the past generations temporary poor and in doing so creates a class of permanent under-achievers.  What kind of logic is this? 

Any presidential candidate must address specifically how they plan on reducing government and the multitudinous pork barrel projects now.  No household can afford to run a negative balance for long without paying heavy consequences.  Why do we allow government to routinely do what we would not and cannot do?  We need a mandated balanced budget and some leader willing to make some tough calls to reduce the budget.  I honestly believe that we stand at a precipice—if we continuing to raise taxes, we will destroy the very liberties that made America the land of the free.   Any candidate that is promising all kinds of government benefits is promising to tax Americans today or tax our children tomorrow.  Enough is enough!  Don’t give me unearned benefits—just ensure my opportunity to enter the free enterprise system and my performance will ensure my benefits.  In 1992, I was living in a trailer, but I had a dream and I knew I wasn’t lazy.  I was engaged to be married and excited about the future.  I had plenty to learn, but a willingness to fail and get up and try again.  Don’t give me a handout and take my self respect.  You can give someone encouragement, give someone money, but self respect is an inside job!  Americans are some of the hardest working people and are not looking for hand outs, but hand ups.  The Team is made up of individuals who know, “If it is to be then it is up to me.”  This is what the Team training is all about—teaching people how to help themselves and others.  As Ronald Reagan said, “America is the last best hope for mankind.”  Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Update:  I want everyone to know that I believe in a limited government as the founding fathers did.  Limited government means—let the citizens accept responsibility for the greatest sphere of action and only utilize government where no individual or group of individuals can accomplish the task.  Government is by nature a monopoly and when government gets involved in an activity, it very rarely withdraws from the field.  Everyone knows that it is much easier to start a government program than to end one.  The more government is involved, the less money and influence the private sector has in that field.  People naturally learn from mistakes due to the pain of failure, but government rarely learns because they do not experience the same pain of failure as individuals and private companies.  An example would be GM, which ran like a federal government for years, (and had a budget like some smaller countries) but is now paying the price for failed policies and learning hard lessons.  Our federal government when it fails, merely taxes more, increases money supply through inflation or borrows more money—this delays the lessons for our future generations.  I am not the type of person to pass the buck to our future generations and I desire a restoration of the government principles that made our country great originally!  The founding fathers spelled out their principles of government in the Federalist Papers in three broad categories:

1. Settling disputes according to the Rule of Law between individuals.

2. Protection from criminals attempting to steal, lie or coerce profits vs. earn them by service.

3. Ensure liberty for all by providing protection from foreign invaders.

God Bless, Orrin Woodward

A major plank for any presidential candidate is how they view government’s role in the economy.  Some candidates view the government as the insurer of the people’s welfare; while others, view government’s role more like an umpire to ensure all citizens play by the rules of free enterprise.  This discussion could develop into many separate books so I give an overview with a couple of specifics cases that will validate the principles.  I feel strongly that no government can insure the welfare of its citizens.  By the very nature of government, it only receives money from the citizens.  How can a government take from its own citizens, pay for all the bureaucrats and still provide more than it has taken?  It is economically impossible, which means the plan is to take from those who have money to give to those who don’t.  There is not one example in the long history of mankind where a reward for laziness has produced more wealth.  Not one, ever!  

Collectivism, regardless of what name you give it—communism, socialism, fascism, Nazism or modern liberals—derives it support from what Albert Jay Nock termed “Epstean’s Law.”  Epstean’s Law states, “Man tends always to satisfy his needs and desires with the least possible exertion.”  What could be better for some uninformed voter than to vote for some politician who promises free food, health care, housing, ET all, under the guise of compassionate care for the less fortunate?  Big companies also get involved by throwing money to politicians who promise special monopoly deals in the marketplace for their product or business.  Epstean’s Law applies to everyone rich or poor and must not be wrongly catered to or our whole country will suffer.  Look at all the well-intentioned government programs that fail and perform the opposite functions of originally planned.  This is why democracies with time become collectivist, as mass-man votes against private property rights and for government welfare for all.   But Epstean’s Law also is the driving force behind every material improvement and labor saving device.  It is highly beneficial when directed by a competitive free-market economy based on the right of private property and equality before the law.  Henry Ford understood Epstean’s Law and stated, “I give the laziest man in my factory the toughest job, because he will find an easier way of doing it.”  This is the positive side of Epstean’s Law.

Government cannot provide for the welfare of its citizens and survive.  Even today we see the results of collectivist action in destroying our great country.  The taxes paid by Americans are at an all time high—when you include all the hidden fees and charges.  The people are drowning through over taxation and are desperate to see their individual financial lives improved.  It is tempting to believe that government can solve their issues and politicians are tempted to promise this to get elected.  DO NOT BE FOOLED!   All we should ask of government is to ensure that everyone plays by the rules and allows human beings to enjoy their God-given rights to grow as fast and as far as they are willing to work.  No one should get a free ride from the government.  But Orrin, what about the unfortunate who need charity?  I am all for charity and we are commanded in the Bible to provide for those in need.  Charity ought to be a private affair and not government directed.  The only thing that has saved this country from collectivism is the inefficiency of the bureaucracy in implementing the collectivist policies.   

Let me give an example from a congressman who understood this principle well.  Davy Crockett, the famous outdoorsman was also a congressman from Tennessee.  After the war of 1812, Congress proposed a bill to appropriate ten thousand dollars to Stephen Decatur’s widow.  The war hero’s widow had fallen on hard times and Congress discussed giving the money to ameliorate her distress.  Only a hard heart would vote against such a compassionate measure, but Davy Crockett had his reasons.  Here is Crockett’s speech he delivered to Congress:

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. . . . 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. . . . We have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. . . 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?  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. . . . But if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House.  There are thousands of widows in the country just such as this one. .

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. . . We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt.  We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate as charity. . . 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.

Crockett knew that “Hard cases make bad law."  The widow bill was defeated and some members did donate money for her hardship.  Not all of the congress participated with their private funds.  It seems most of congress is more willing to be compassionate with public funds than personal funds.  Imagine if Bob Dickie, the Team CEO, started taking Team funds and donating to charities of his choice.  These are Team funds and not at the disposal of any one of us.  In the same way, government funds are the citizen’s money held in a trust to provide the basic infrastructure for all of the people.  Politicians should not spend the public funds on pet projects or anything that creates a special deal for some against others.  This divides people and initiates Epstean’s Law in a detrimental way. 

Any candidate for president that proposes more government to solve the ills of the people is a direct descendant of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.  Whatever else government is, it is the society’s apparatus of coercion.  Government has monopoly power to enforce the rules of the game.  If someone enters a bank and attempts to illegally withdraw funds by violence—the police have authority to coerce the bank robber out of his actions through force.  To quote Edmund Opitz, “The business of society is peace; the business of government is violence.  So, the question is: What service can violence render to peace?  The libertarian answer is that violence can serve peace only by restraining peace breakers.”   If you don’t think the business of government is violence then stop paying your taxes and see if violence occurs.  Remember, every law passed also passes corresponding punishments for not obeying the law.  Every law passed means more government intervention to ensure the law is followed.  I am not for a lawless society, but am for reducing the quantity of laws and the controls that bind the human spirit and liberties needlessly. 

To sum up, government provides for defense, ensures God-given rights, and allows the pursuit of happiness.  Government cannot ensure the welfare of its citizens and any politician promising the government will take care of you is either lying or hopelessly ignorant.  We as Americans must insist that our candidate for president allows America to do what it does best—freely solve our own problems.  A moral people following the principles of the Bible does not need a new Sovereign.   The more people follow God, the less they will need government regulations & rules to enforce a myriad of issues.  The American phenomenon is based upon free people thinking, doing and solving issues for themselves with minimal government involvement.  Ronald Reagan said it best, “The ten scariest words to hear—‘This is the government and we are here to help.’”  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

I have enjoyed the comments flowing to the posts on Presidential Principles for Candidates.  The readers of this blog are clear, articulate, and logical thinkers. Here is the original list of the four questions for review purposes.

1. Does the candidate believe in God and understand the blessings this nation has enjoyed because of our faith in God? 

2. Does the candidate have a proven track record of personal and professional integrity and character? 

3. Does the candidate believe that a free people not a controlling government is responsible for our economic blessings?

4. Can the candidate lead people and supply a principle-based vision for America?

Let’s continue our analysis on question number one.  Patriotism for our country flows from an understanding of the underlying principles our country was founded upon.   For a person to be qualified for the president’s position—certainly a love of country and understanding of the founding principles is required.  I get upset when I hear people making character attacks on our founding fathers.  The basic argument goes, “What hypocrites, saying they believe in freedom and yet enslaving the blacks and committing genocide on the Indian nations.”   It doesn't take a genius to prove that human beings are fallen and do not live up to their ideals.  Hypocrisy is part of the human condition.  All of us judge others on the very same issues we ourselves are guilty of.  For example, how many readers have been upset at another’s pride and yet we have a wrongful pride ourselves at times.  Believe me, I am talking to me as much as you.  Although America is not perfect—America did fight a bloody war that freed the slaves and has brought many Indians into the free enterprise system.  We must constantly focus on our ideals and not allow self-centeredness to overcome our principles.  But this is much different than giving up on ideals, because we haven’t lived up to them!

America was founded on ideals.  Ideals like, all men are created equal before an Almighty God.   Ideals like, you will be paid based on your service to others.  Ideals like, representative government, innocent until proven guilty and freedom of the press.   Ideals like, justice, mercy, peace and honor.  Being an American is more a way of thinking than a specific nationality.  Anyone can be an American, regardless of race, creed, color, etc.   America is a land of opportunity—an idea that people should not be judged on the color of their skin; the way they worship God; or their family lineage; but by the content of their character - to quote Martin Luther King Jr.  It makes no difference whether your ancestors were kings, queens, nobility, farmers, paupers, prisoners or slaves, because in America you have an opportunity to rise above your roots.  In a free enterprise society, you are rewarded based on your willingness to serve others.  People from all nationalities would come to America for the opportunity to be rewarded for their efforts.  Yes, many were poor immigrants and lived hand to mouth, but they sacrificed so their children could learn the American principles and prosper.   We owe a huge debt to our ancestors who came to America for the dream of a new start.  Some came as indentured servants, some as slaves, some as poor immigrants, some were here as Native Americans, but we are all joined together as Americans because of our founding ideals. 

In other countries, you are a citizen if you are that nationality.  You may live and even have citizenship in France, Germany, or Italy, but you will never truly be French, German, or Italian.  When you learn the ideals of America, you become part of the great melting pot known as Americans.   This is what we are losing in today’s love affair with multi-culturalism.  Don’t get me wrong, I am fascinated with all cultures and can learn something from all, but when people come to live in America they should learn the principles that made America great.  I have said all this to bring you to my point!  The American president must respect and encourage people from all nationalities living in America, but lead in the assimilation of all cultures into the guiding principles that has made America the freest, wealthiest and most generous nation on earth.  If our own president is not proud of our heritage, how can the people following the presidential leader be proud? 

Research every candidate and ask, “Do they know our history and love our country?”  Is their goal to bring all cultures together to create a better America?  Or is their goal to have a divided America, where people speak their native tongue, do not buy into American principles and fight to change the very principles that made millions of immigrants come to America in the first place?   My ancestors came from England, Germany, Ireland and some were Native American, but I am an American!  If you buy into the ideals discussed earlier, then you too are an American also.  Why do we apologize for the principles that led millions to abandon their homelands to come to our American shores?   I want a president who will be proud of America and help us be proud of our heritage.  No, we are not perfect, but no nation is or ever will be.  I will put our founding principles against any other country in the world and not apologize for them.  I am proud to be an American and proud to enjoy the corresponding freedoms.  I am free to write this article without fear of reprisals from an over arching government.  You are free to disagree with me without fear of retaliation.  If I could choose a country to live in, I would do no better than the gift God blessed me with of being an American.  I hope you feel the same about your country. 

We as a nation, have a responsibility to protect these principles and leave our country better than we found it.  This is why I feel so strongly about the media war.  The media war is designed to teach our citizens the principles that God has honored and blessed.  Will you help me and the rest of the great leaders of Team educate our people on these guiding principles?  If you will, then we must find a candidate who supports and encourages theses principles also.  One of my biggest fears is to be  near death and having my great grandchildren around me and ask, “Grandpa, tell us again what it was like to live in a free America?”  We have much to do and we are the Team of leaders to do it.  Yes, it is time to Launch a Leadership Revolution! God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Assignment:  What do you love about America?  What candidates believe in our founding principles and remind us of what it means to be an American?  Please share.

I just read another incredible article.  On June 6, 2007 33 senators voted against the English language being America’s official language.  What is up with that?  America has for centuries been the melting pot of the world.  People from all nations have come to America and learned our culture including our language.  Why would so many senators reject something as basic as the English language for the official language of America?   Retired US Colonel Harry Riley was extremely upset at the lack of patriotism displayed by these senators and wrote:

Senators:

Your vote against an amendment to the immigration Bill 1348......to make English America's official language is astounding. On D-Day, no less, when we honor those that sacrificed in order to secure the bedrock, character and principles of America.

I can only surmise your vote reflects a loyalty to illegal aliens.  I don't much care where you come from.  What your religion is.  Whether you're black, white, or some other color.....male or female......Democrat, Republican or Independent.

But I do care when you are a United States Senator representing Citizens of America....and Vote against English as the official language of the United States.

Your vote reflects Betrayal.  Political Surrender.  Violates Your Pledge of Allegiance.  Dishonors historical principle. Rejects Patriotism.  Borders On traitorous action and, in my opinion, makes you unfit to serve as a United States senator, impeachment... Recall........Or other appropriate action is warranted or worse.

Four of you voting against English as America's Official Language are Presidential Candidates:  Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd and Senator Obama. 

Four Senators vying to lead America, but won't or Don' t have the courage to cast a vote in favor of "English"  as America's Official Language when 91% of American Citizens want English officially designated as our language. 

This is the second time in the last several months this list of Senators have disgraced themselves as "political Hacks", Unworthy as Senators and certainly unqualified to serve as President of the United States. 

 If America is as angry as I am, you will realize a backlash so stunning it will literally "rock you out of your panties"......... And preferably totally out of the United States Senate.

The entire immigration bill is a farce... Your action only confirms this really isn't about America.....it is about self-serving politics......despicable at best.  It has been said:

"Never Argue with an Idiot....They'll drag you down to their level!"

The following Senators voted against making English the official language

Of America:

Akaka (D-HI)

Bayh (D-IN)

Biden (D-DE) (Wants to be President)

Bingaman (D-NM)

Boxer (D-CA)

Cantwell (D-WA)

Clinton (D-NY) (Wants to be President) 

Dayton (D-MN)

Dodd (D- MN) (wants to be president)

Domenici (R-NM) coward. Protecting his senate seat

Durbin (D-IL)

Feingold (D-win) - not unusual for him

Feinstein (D-ca)

Harkin (D-IA)

Inouye (D-hi)

Jeffords (I-VT)

Kennedy - (D-ma)

Kerry (D-ma) (tried to be president)

Kohl (D-WI))

Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Leahy (D-VT)

Levin (D-MI)

Lieberman (I-CT) Disappointment here .....

Menendez (D-NJ)

Mikulski (D-MD)

Murray (D-WA)

Obama (D-IL) (Wants to be President)

Reed (D-RI)

Reid (D-NV) Senate Majority Leader

As Lazar (D-CO)

Sarbanes (D-MD)

Schumer (D-NY)

Stabenow (D-M

PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or Hanged!!!

Assignment:  I am not for hangings, but why do you think so many senators voted against English as the official language of the USA?  What do you think of Colonel Riley’s letter?  Are some of the leaders of our nation no longer proud of our American heritage?