Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Press Briefing Tony Snow 08/08/07 VIDEO PODCAST

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, vidcap from 07/13/07Press Briefing by Tony Snow, FULL STREAMING VIDEO. file is windows media format, running time is 21:46. James S. Brady Briefing Room. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow briefs the press and answers questions. 08 08 2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 1:02 P.M. EST.PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE
MR. SNOW: Good afternoon. A few things up front. This afternoon we're going to give you the results of the President's physical exam. It's actually been conducted in a series of exams over the last couple of weeks. Doctors have determined that the President remains in superior fitness for a man his age -- anybody who has seen him on the bike or out and about certainly knows that -- and that he is fit for duty.

The President and Mrs. Bush are going to welcome French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Mrs. Sarkozy to the home of former President George H.W. Bush, for a private lunch on August 11th -- that will be Saturday. This is a result of an invitation extended during the G8 by Mrs. Bush to Mrs. Sarkozy.

Obviously, the U.S. and France share a deep historic friendship. They've worked together since the founding of the nation to protect freedom around the world. And the President looks forward to visiting with President Sarkozy during their time in Kennebunkport and also, obviously, looks forward to working with him in the months and years ahead.

The President also spoke Tuesday evening with Australian Prime Minister John Howard. The President told the Prime Minister that he looks forward to visiting Sydney in early September for bilateral meetings and for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders summit. President Bush and Prime Minister Howard discussed a range of issues, including the situation in Iraq, the international economic outlook, and climate change issues.
Questions.

Q Has the President called Barry Bonds yet?

MR. SNOW: Actually been reaching out to him, and there will be a conversation at some point today.

Q Tony, in the President's statement about the economy, he didn't mention anything about the mortgage issue, which is currently creating a lot of anxiety in some sectors, and also nothing about the credit crunch. I'm wondering why not.
President George W. Bush congratulates San Francisco Giants' Barry Bonds in a phone call from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Wednesday, Aug. 8. 2007. Mr. Bonds hit his record-breaking 756th home run during last night's game against the Washington Nationals in San Francisco. White House photo by Chris Greenberg
MR. SNOW: Well, number one, obviously people are concerned about the situation. Fortunately, at this juncture, the subprime market is something like 0.7 percent of the overall mortgage market, but it is a source of concern. The President really was speaking broadly of the fundamentals in the economy, and you've got an economy right now where we still have robust levels of growth, we have continued growth in employment, we have wage growth. But the President also thinks it's very important to continue to attend to fundamentals in terms of keeping taxes low, working on regulations, and also looking at trade, because exports, for instance, represent a very important and growing part of our economy.

Why the President didn't mention something, I don't know. But the fact is that you had a broad briefing about a lot of issues; he'll have opportunities to talk about other things later on.

Q On the micro level, a lot of people -- individuals who are reading newspapers every day, aware of their own mortgage statements -- adjustable rate mortgages, for instance -- a lot of people sort of get a sense of how the economy is going through that very individualistic prism. And more and more people -- not just subprime -- are starting to feel some sort of pinch as regards their mortgages.

MR. SNOW: Well, what you're talking about is adjustable rate mortgages. Look, there obviously is some anxiety about mortgages in various parts of the economy. What the President thinks is important is that you have to make sure that you don't strangle the market for providing funds for people to continue to finance their homes. And that is -- that's obviously something that we'll continue to look at it.

Q The President said he would use his veto pen to prevent tax increases, yet even some Republicans are suggesting some tax increases to repair the nation's infrastructure, such as the bridges. Would the President be open to something specific like that, to transportation needs?

MR. SNOW: Well, I think at this juncture, let's -- number one, I haven't heard any specific requests from Republicans for raising taxes on infrastructure. Number two, it's important to take a clear look -- you've got to keep in mind, the majority of funding for infrastructure is state and local. There is a significant federal role, but the majority is from state and local. And we've had a 30 percent increase during this administration in the funding for transportation and for infrastructure.

If this -- if members want to have a conversation about it when they come back, we'll certainly listen, but the President believes it's important to hold the line on taxes. A lot of times, when you are making -- you've got to make decisions about what your priorities are, and members of Congress, obviously, they'll have something to say. But what you're asking me to respond to basically are flyers at this juncture, rather than concrete proposals. Can't really do it in detail.

Q Tony, President Musharraf bailing on this jirga, is that a setback for --

MR. SNOW: We're not -- we're not sure what his schedule is. The Prime Minister is there, and really the most important thing to do right now is to figure out what the jirga achieves. So you have a senior official -- the Prime Minister certainly counts as a senior official within the Pakistani government. I don't know and I'm not sure our people know for sure what President Musharraf's schedule is. But, no, this is obviously important. You've got Pashtun leaders from both sides of the border. They're talking about something that's very important, which is try to build greater confidence and security, and to try to avoid the problem not only of the gaining strength of radical forces within some of the tribal areas in Pakistan, but also stopping cross-border incursions, which has continued to be a source of concern for the Afghans.

Q But is the White House and the President concerned, after Karzai seemed to be friendlier toward Pakistan the other day at Camp David --

MR. SNOW: Again, I think what you're trying to do is to create a personal fight here, and I don't think it exists.

Q Tony, does FISA or any law affecting intelligence gathering need further revisions, or is the state of the law now exactly what the President thinks he needs?

MR. SNOW: There would be further revisions that we would like to see. As we told you before, DNI Director McConnell put together a 66-page bill originally; we pared it down to 11 pages, which were the absolute essentials. Now, we're going to have to see in the atmosphere when we get back what Congress is willing to consider.

What Congress has done now is passed a bill that will stay in effect until -- well, six months from now. In six months it's going to be debated again. It is important at all times to try to figure out how you can collect intelligence, how you can target -- how you can sort of surveil foreign targets who are not on American soil, do so in a way that is consistent with protecting the civil liberties of Americans, and at the same time guaranteeing their security.

I cannot tell you at this point, Ken, what kind of debate is going to be happening in the weeks to come. But certainly it's important to make sure that we realize that in the war on terror we're fighting an enemy that's constantly adapting, that is technologically sophisticated, that certainly is doing what it can to try to make full use of means of communication and means of destruction to go after American citizens, and we've got to be nimble in responding to them.

Q As we sit here today, are there things the President would like to do that he thinks are crucial to defending the country that he thinks the law doesn't allow him to?

MR. SNOW: At this point I'll let the President say it. Right now what we're talking about is we have gotten what the DNI Director says he needs for this month, right now. We can continue the conversation about what other changes might be contemplated later.

Q Why did the President need enhanced power to conduct surveillance involving American citizens, as well? I understand the target --

MR. SNOW: What do you mean?

Q Well, because now the target is somebody overseas, but it could be somebody who is talking to an American citizen by phone or email.

MR. SNOW: Well, you've got to keep in mind that the original FISA statute said that you didn't need a warrant if you were, in fact, doing surveillance on a foreigner, period. What we've done is we have restored the original intent and design of FISA.

Again, the target in these conversations: a foreign individual not on U.S. soil. If that person is talking to a U.S. citizen, it does not mean that you're sitting around doing surveillance on the U.S. citizen. Furthermore, if it is a --

Q But if you're surveilling a phone call, you're not just listening to the foreigner's side of the call, right?

MR. SNOW: Well, yes, but on the other hand, if -- you probably understand that if somebody is just calling in and asking how his socks are at the dry cleaners, all of that personal information is combed out and, in fact, the U.S. citizen basically -- you're not conducting surveillance.

If, on the other hand, they're talking about blowing up subways in New York, what happens is then our officials would go to the FISA court, seek a warrant and listen in. But the idea that somehow this is an attempt to sit around and listen in on American citizens -- I can think of nothing less efficient than sitting around and saying, I want to listen to Joe here, but I've got to wait until somebody abroad who belongs to al Qaeda gives him a phone call.

Q But on that point about going to the FISA court, you're saying the administration will still go to the FISA court. But, in fact, the new law is going to give enhanced power to the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to approve this, not the --

MR. SNOW: When you want a warrant to do surveillance on an American citizen, you have to go to the FISA court.

Q Still?

MR. SNOW: Yes, yes. But what we're talking about -- yes, absolutely.

Q So the Attorney General can't just sign off on it, or the DNI, without the FISA court --

MR. SNOW: Well, what happens is that the Attorney General, the DNI, a number of other lawyers and others are going to put together procedures for figuring out who is eligible -- how you do eligibility -- in other words, that foreign target not on American soil. That is the focal point of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And by the way, the vast majority of surveillance conducted on this is foreign to foreign; it has nothing to do with Americans.

So what they end up doing is coming up with the proper procedures and design for -- under which you can conduct surveillance consistent with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This actually is an expansion of the court's power; it did not have that power under the original statute.

Q But if the vast majority do involve foreign to foreign, why did you need this new power to potentially --

MR. SNOW: It's not a new power. What happened is that the way the law was written, if you ended up having a foreign-to-foreign conversation that ended up traveling over a fiber-optic line in the United States, you'd have to go seek a warrant for it. Well, wait a minute. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was never designed to go seek warrants for foreigners doing conversation -- foreign targets doing conversations. It was technologically obsolete. So what we were trying to do was to craft a bill that would reflect not only modern-day technology, but also keep in mind that it's not merely terror targets but hostile foreign powers and others. So, again, it is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; foreign targets not on U.S. soil are, in fact, the primary concern.

April.

Q Tony, on two subjects, one on Barry Bonds. Was there ever a concern that the President would not call him because of the cloud over him about steroids?

MR. SNOW: No, the reason we -- the President was asleep when Barry Bonds hit his home run, and Barry Bonds was asleep when the President came to work today. I mean, it's one of those things where baseball players, especially after setting records, tend to stay up late -- and especially when you're three time zones away.

Q The President talked about steroids in his State of the Union address in 2004. In the midst of this controversy, there's a question over it, and some people are saying that there will always be an asterisk next to his name. What is the President saying about the issue of steroids?

MR. SNOW: Number one, the President thinks that steroids are inappropriate; it's a lousy example to kids, and it's also a way to destroy your body if you're a professional athlete. He's made it clear that performance-enhancing drugs, in fact, are destructive not only to the athlete, but certainly set a lousy -- terrible example for kids. He supports Major League Baseball's efforts not only to go after performance-enhancing drugs, but Senator Mitchell also taking a look at the phenomenon within the sport, trying to get to the bottom of it.

As far as Barry Bonds, this is something that's properly -- Major League Baseball is taking its look. We're certainly not going to try to be the fact witness on that.

Q Okay. And on China, it's happening again, apparently seafood is coming into the country that's not being inspected, that has carcinogens and antibiotics. What are you guys doing --

MR. SNOW: As you know, that is the Food and Drug Administration also, and Secretary Leavitt has put together a task force on food safety. Give them a call.

Q A follow-up on China, Tony? There's a report out --

MR. SNOW: Okay. (Laughter.) Pat.

Q Thank you -- a report out of London indicating that Chinese officials are sending word that they might be prepared to use their $1.3 trillion in foreign reserves to counter any pressure from the United States, economic pressure on their exports. Is there a concern here that China --

MR. SNOW: I know nothing about the report. I'm certainly not going to try to engage in global economic speculation on a report that I'm not familiar with.

Q Tony, two quick questions. One, going back to Afghanistan. When these two great leaders met at Camp David, President Bush and President Karzai of Afghanistan, what message they had for the 25 million Afghans who were freed and had first freely elected government in Afghanistan, when they were trying for freedom from the Taliban and al Qaeda? But today, they're asking freedom for peace. How can they have peace in Afghanistan?

MR. SNOW: Well, peace is a challenge in Afghanistan. You've got the Taliban who are still trying once again to create its own reign of terror and oppression within Afghanistan. It's obviously important to fight back against them.

Goyal, the aim has always been the same, which is, again, to build a government that's able to stand on its own, that's able to expand the security perimeter beyond Kabul, and at the same time, building the strength among police and army forces. And as we pointed out last week or the week before, there has been significant improvement and increases in training. There are infrastructure problems, there are challenges on the drug front and building a firm economy. Again, when you are trying to build a stable nation, especially in a wreckage of the kind of oppression that -- and destruction that the Taliban wreaked, it takes a considerable amount of time to put all the pieces together.

Q Also, just -- on Afghanistan, many peace workers and many countries and many U.N. workers are not willing to go to Afghanistan to work because now foundations are hostages and others feel the same thing may happen to them. What are we doing as far as security for those who want to work for --

MR. SNOW: Well, look, we -- this gives you an idea of the kind of people we're fighting. And we deplore it when they kidnap and they kill innocent humans -- innocent men and women and children. But the most important thing to do is, again, to continue to work with that Afghan government so that it has the capability and resources to defend itself. And we'll do everything we can to assist.

Q Tony, Asia analysts say the upcoming summit between the two Koreas will actually do very little to get North Korea to start abandoning nuclear weapons, that it will take much more direct U.S. involvement. Does the administration see these talks as being hopeful towards --

MR. SNOW: Well, the administration supports the talks, and South Korea had notified us in advance. We certainly support them. But it is important -- you've got the six-party process and this falls within the six-party process, where you've got to have everybody working together to put pressure on the North Koreans not only to shut down Pyongyang, but also suspend any activities that can be used for uranium enrichment and reprocessing.

I mean, we've -- it's all laid out in the September 13th agreement, and the fact is that you've got to have all parties working together. And they have been. And the tough decisions have to be made by the North Koreans.

Q Tony, Nouri al-Maliki is in Tehran again. Did he consult with the administration before going there? Does it worry the President or his aides that he's talking about -- economic and other cooperation agreements with a regime that the President has repeatedly called a force for instability?

MR. SNOW: Well, no, what the President has said is that the Iranians have to make a decision in that they should have an interest in stability, and to the extent that there has been the movement of weaponry and also fighters over the Iranian border, that is a contributor to instability. As you know, there have been conversations about just that topic between the U.S. Ambassador and Iranian counterparts.

On the other hand, Iran is the neighbor of Iraq, and it is certainly appropriate for the Prime Minister to travel to neighbors and try to make his case also for engaging in the kind of relationships that lead to stability rather than instability.

Q You don't think that repeatedly attempting to negotiate agreements with Tehran is going to, for example, worry the Sunnis and further distance themselves from the so-called unity government?

MR. SNOW: Look, the Prime Minister -- you've got to keep in mind that Prime Minister Maliki is the Prime Minister of all Iraq, and he is obviously thinking about what's going to be important for the stability of Iraq. He's also made it clear that he does not consider himself, and nobody should, a proxy for Iran, or Shia as proxy for Iran. Shia within Iraq are working to get their own homeland, to get their freedoms, to get their economic independence. And, again, so -- I don't want to try to go any further than that, but it is perfectly consistent with his duties as a Prime Minister to reach out to a neighbor and to try to have good relations.

Q Did he consult with us first?

MR. SNOW: I mean, we knew he was going, but he's a sovereign head of state.

Q Tony, given the problems that we have in the economy with the credit on the corporate level and the mortgage market -- it's spilled over from mortgage to credit -- the President's speech today seemed way off target. I'm wondering, is that the speech that was intended, or did they change it at the last minute, because --

MR. SNOW: I think -- I don't want to try to pose here as the overall economic expert, but you've got an economy that's enormously strong. And there have been problems within the credit markets, and it is something that is a source of concern. But on the other hand, you've got inflation that's been moderated; you have continued growth in income and employment; you have very strong fundamentals. So I would -- he may not have said what you would have liked him to say, but, on the other hand, he was talking to some pretty capable economic analysts, in the persons of the Treasury Secretary, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, and so on, and he was trying to give an overall view. What you're saying is, he didn't pinpoint a problem.

Q Well, he did pinpoint a problem. He said that the greatest threat to the economy are the Democrats.

MR. SNOW: But he also -- one of the things it said is that the -- market always prices in a risk premium, and that's one of the things that's been going on in the marketplace.

Q But I mean, why did he bother to give that speech if it's not addressing --

MR. SNOW: Oh, I'm sorry, because it didn't address the bad news that you -- your perceived bad news, because it talks about underlying strengths?

Q Why did he have this lunch? I mean, is this something --

MR. SNOW: He does it every year. This is the seventh year he's done it. He's done it in August of each of the years. Please consult calendar. This is a normal annual event to meet with economic advisors. And you know what, it's legitimate for a President to say, to raise taxes at a time like this is bad policy; to increase regulation at a time like this is bad policy; not to pursue free trade in an increasingly competitive world, where exports represent a growing part of our economy, is bad policy.

Q You're giving a better speech than he did. (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: I'm getting out of here.

Q Tony, what is the President hoping to get out of this meeting with President Sarkozy? And why is he using Walker's Point, now the second time in just a matter of six weeks?

MR. SNOW: Well, the First Lady extended the invitation at the G8. You've got a new French President who is -- number one, he's vacationing -- he's been vacationing in New Hampshire; he's in the neighborhood. Number two, it looks like we're on the verge of a new era of relations with the French, which is a good thing, and the President believes in building personal relationships with other heads of state. This fits into that pattern. It's coming over -- I'm sure they'll talk about some international matters, but this is not a summit, this is not something with an agenda. The agenda is, come by and let's visit. And the main reason you're at Walker's Point is the First Lady extended the invitation and the French President is in the neighborhood.

Q To follow up on that, this was extended two months ago at the G8, is that correct?

MR. SNOW: Correct.

Q So did the Sarkozys already have plans to come to the United States to vacation?

MR. SNOW: I have not asked them or the French government, so I don't know.

Q Well, is that why Mrs. Bush extended the invitation, because there were going to be in the neighborhood?

MR. SNOW: I honestly don't know, Ann.

Q What do you think of a foreign head of state making his first vacation in the United States?

MR. SNOW: Well, he certainly picked a good country to visit, didn't he? (Laughter.)

Q Great.

Q Can we quote you on that, Tony?

MR. SNOW: Yes, absolutely -- a great country to visit.

Q A couple of questions not related. There's a feeling that McConnell stepped over -- crossed the line at being a propagandist for this spy legislation.

MR. SNOW: I think it's unfortunate because there may be some charges that really don't reflect the realities of Mike McConnell and who he is. He doesn't see himself as a political figure. The President asked a simple question: What do you need? Mike McConnell is the guy who is running DNI and, by the way, has received high marks from Democrats and Republicans, including in some of the reporting today.

So I would sort of steer away from the sort of personal reporting on this because, frankly, he's somebody who is serving as an honest broker and was dealing not only in good faith, but worked very hard with members of both parties and produced a piece of legislation that passed overwhelmingly.

Q My other question is there a gate that the Petraeus report will come through?

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm sure there is, we just don't know what it is.

Q In September?

MR. SNOW: Yes, well, look, there is a September 15th reporting date.

Okay, we'll catch up with you.

END 1:25 P.M. EDT. For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, August 8, 2007

Technorati Tags: and or and , or and , or , or New York Times Story on FISA Legislation and John Graves Simcoe Canada Civic Day and A New Wrinkle in Thin Film Science

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Ronald Reagan "A Time for Choosing" 10/27/64 VIDEO PODCAST

"A Time for Choosing" PODCAST of complete speech running time is 27:50. Complete VIDEO running time is 27:47. FULL TEXT.
In a speech supporting the Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater, Reagan speaks of big government, high taxation, and the "war on poverty." He addresses foreign policy issues including the risk of appeasement, "peace through strength," and the Vietnam War. The speech establishes Reagan as an important figure in the conservative wing of the Republican party.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, "We've never had it so good."

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down -- [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" -- this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming -- that's regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we've spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He'll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He'll find that they've also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there's been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There's now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how -- who are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer -- and they've had almost 30 years of it -- shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now -- so now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have -- and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs -- do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we're going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we're going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things -- we're never "for" anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

Now -- we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth?

I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we're against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

I think we're for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we're against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We're helping 107. We've spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So.governments' programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees -- federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died -- because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men -- that we're to choose just between two personalities.

Well what of this man that they would destroy -- and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he'd load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.

Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum. And what then -- when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.

Technorati tags: and or and or or New York Times Story on FISA Legislation and John Graves Simcoe Canada Civic Day and A New Wrinkle in Thin Film Science

Linkfest Haven, the Blogger's OasisTrackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, The Pink Flamingo, Stuck On Stupid,
Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. Trackposted to Nuke's news and views, http://morewhat.com/wordpress/?p=2130, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Random Yak, Right Truth, Conservative Thoughts, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blue Star Chronicles, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie Is Wired, Wake Up America, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Trackback URL for this entry: http://haloscan.com/tb/sookietex/3175804042180211758

15 Trackbacks to this Post

I Like Mike Roundup and Open Thread Says:Team Huckabee is currently in Sheldon, Iowa tonight. Newt Gingrich said today that Governor Huckabee is the most interesting dark horse, and that he is catching on with GOP voters. Check out his statement, Weblog: Nuke’s News and Views 08.08.07 at 1:52 am

My first 1,000 hits! Excerpt: Today I reached that magical 1,000 visits, and I would like to thank everyone who has made an effort in helping me reach this goal. Woman Honor Thyself is the very nice lady who was the ... Weblog: Rosemary's Thoughts Tracked: 08.08.07 - 5:45 am

Methodist Church Goes Muslim Excerpt: British Methodist Church Goes Islamic (The Christian Post) Reflective of larger European trends, in which Islamic populations are burgeoning while Christians recede, an old Methodist church in Britain is now becoming a mosque. Significantly, the local ... Weblog: Right Truth Tracked: 08.08.07 - 6:26 am

Coca-Cola Logo a Zionist Plot? Excerpt: Thanks to Velvet Hammer for adding yet another example to the list.DW: Nissan Retlev-Katz tells me that the Coca Cola company has a Myths and Rumors webpage on its main website. There are only three subheadings under this page, but Weblog: The Amboy Times Tracked: 08.08.07 - 6:27 am

Vets for Freedom Needs Your Help Excerpt: Vets for Freedom recently began airing an ad in support of Sen. Norm Coleman's stance on Iraq. (Watch the ad in support of Senator Coleman) The ad was designed to thank Sen. Coleman for his support for our troops and their mission in Iraq and Afghani... Weblog: Wake up America-BUSTED Tracked: 08.08.07 - 7:52 am

Getting Naked for God??? Excerpt: Ok, this one is wrong on so many levels that I don’t even know where to begin but it was shared with me and I’m going to share it with you…BUT BE WARNED: DO NOT HAVE A MOUTHFUL OF COFFEE WHEN YOU READ THIS AND HAVE A BOTTLE OF VISI... Weblog: CommonSenseAmerica Tracked: 08.08.07 - 8:48 am

Vets for Freedom Needs Your Help Excerpt: Vets for Freedom recently began airing an ad in support of Sen. Norm Coleman's stance on Iraq. (Watch the ad in support of Senator Coleman) The ad was designed to thank Sen. Coleman for his support for our troops and their mission in Iraq and Afghani... Weblog: Wake up America Tracked: 08.08.07 - 10:54 am

The Left Antiwar Motive — Excerpt: While you will have no trouble finding reports that are critical of General Petraeus and US military success in recent months, the Continetti opinion piece from the Weekly Standard is a refreshing look at more than one side of the discussion. Weblog: Blog at MoreWhat.com 08.08.07 11:15 am

Confessions of a Recovering Democrat Excerpt: Have you ever read an article that you wished would go on longer? Many times I find myself wishing they were brief and to the point, but not this time. I want more evidence, more significant changes, actually reasons for the change. Weblog: Rosemary's Thoughts Tracked: 08.08.07 - 3:22 pm

Proper Journalism Excerpt: The Palestinian journalists have not always distinguished themselves by seeking the truth and reporting the facts, but in this instance, they did so in the face of threats and coercion. That's a good thing. Weblog: A Blog For All Tracked: 08.08.07 - 5:24 pm

The Irony of Enforcement It looks as if Washington may be getting the message but I think I speak for most when I say, I’ll believe it when I see it. Let’s look at ‘the plan’ … The Washington Post reports:. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The government is planning a ... Posted by Christi at Wed Aug 08, 07:14:04 PM

"An Audience with the Don (Surber That Is)" I was honored to interview one of the great bloggers out there, Don Surber. Don’s a columnist for the Charleston Daily Mail and a blogger and he brings perspectives of both worlds to this fun interview. Issues discussed include: Barry Bonds an... Adam's Blog trackbacked

Time travel has actually occurred Excerpt: Apparently George Bush recently traveled back to 1998. Then again, it may have been Dick Halliburton Cheney. What else can explain NASA revising the U.S. temperature for that year downward? Weblog: Mark My Words Tracked: 08.09.07 - 5:18 pm

NYTimes blogger panders to his readers Excerpt: Apparently he thinks his readers are terrorists, or at the very least, terrorist wannabe's. It's rather sad that someone takes so much narcissistic consideration of their intellectual frolicking that they ... Weblog: Mark My Words Tracked: 08.09.07 - 6:37 pm

Committee for the Propagation of Virtue Excerpt: in Baqouba, al-Qaida has warned street vendors not to place tomatoes beside cucumbers because the vegetables are different genders 08.09.07 at 9:44 pm