I should like to find the existence of what my father called "Plain living and high thinking."

I want some fields and hills, woodlands and streams I can call my own. I want to spend my strength in making fields green, and the cattle fat, so that I may give sustenance to my loved ones, and aid to those neighbors who suffer misfortune. I do not want a life of monotonous paper-shuffling or of trafficking with money-mad traders.

I only want enough of science to enable fruitful husbandry of the land with simple tools, a time for leisure, and the guarding of my family’s health. I do not care to be absorbed in the endless examining of force and space and matter, which I believe can only slowly lead to God.

I do not want a hectic hurrying from place to place on whizzing machines or busy streets. I do not want an elbowing through crowds of impatient strangers who have time neither to think their own thoughts nor to know real friendship. I want to live slowly, to relax with my family before a glowing fireplace, to welcome the visits of my neighbors, to worship God, to enjoy a book, to lie on a shaded grassy bank and watch the clouds sail across the blue.

I want to love a wife who prefers rural peace to urban excitement, one who would rather climb a hilltop to watch a sunset with me than to take a taxi to any Broadway play. I want a woman who is not afraid of bearing children, and who is able to rear them with a love for home and the soil, and the fear of God.

I want of Government only protection against the violence and injustices of evil or selfish men.

I want to reach the sunset of life sound in body and mind, flanked by strong sons and grandsons, enjoying the friendship and respect of neighbors, surrounded by fertile fields and sleek cattle, and retaining my boyhood faith in Him who promised a life to come.

Where can I find this world? Would its anachronism doom it to ridicule or loneliness. Is there yet a place for such simple ways in my own America or must I seek a vale in Turkestan where peaceful flocks still graze the quiet hills?

Bi-partisanship – Baloney!
By A. V. Horton 1/7/00

Now that the repeated Gore attempts to steal the presidential election has finally run out if gas, we are being inundated with the Bi-partisanship thrust once again. We hear about the virtues of Bi-partisanship from very nearly all Democrats, Brother Jesse, John McCain, the Black Caucus, and Trent Lott - to name a few. Before you become enamored with this concept, remember that we have essentially two groups in DC. One is evil and the other is stupid. Without fail, whenever these two groups decide to be conciliatory with each other, they adopt rules, laws, and policies that are both evil and stupid. You and I end up with further impairments of our freedoms and liberties and, of course, we get to pay the bill for the privilege.

Is it not time to demand that the Republicans get busy and govern the USA on the basis set out in the Constitution? Our Founders had the foresight to give us a Constitutional Republic – not a Democracy, by the way. Our Constitutional Republic has proven to be the superior government form as evidenced by our accomplishments over little more than two centuries.

Other countries, with their defective forms of government and lower living standards, continue to display their typically jealous displeasure about us and our system. ‘Jealous’ is the operative term here – do not be fooled by these constant attacks from other countries. Then we have the Liberal movement, within our country, continuing their attempts to undermine our cornerstones. Their idea of Bi-partisanship is "Do it our way!" The Liberals are a loose formation of small crazed groups each with an agenda that won’t bear any valid scrutiny on a stand-alone basis. They have determined that they can bundle their agendas and, with the mutual support of each other, can successfully be heard. The truth of the matter is that those who subscribe to the typical liberal cause are totally single minded and have no concern about who they must travel with in order to be heard. They appear to be of a mind that would be quite happy with a wrecked nation so long as their pet agenda is in place – how short sighted and naïve people can become.

The question before us is "Are we astute enough to keep our Constitutional Republic?" We won’t get it done by continuing down the road of evil and stupidity. Read your copy of the Constitution and urge others to do the same. It is particularly important that those who represent us in government be busy reading the Constitution rather than studying poll results. Let them hear from you when they mis-step.

The recent FBI report entitled "Project Megiddo" is a strategic assessment of the potential for domestic terrorism in the United States. The Project was undertaken, according to the FBI, "in anticipation of or response to the arrival of the new millennium."

Fair enough. As an American with red, white, and blue blood running through my veins, I am pleased that the FBI is actively anticipating terrorism in the United States. I enjoy my life, my work, my family, my hunting lease, my church, and, yes even fast food, and I do not want any terrorist to spoil them.

At first reading, the Report simply covers potential terrorism in the United States, and provides law enforcement personnel with a good overall "heads up" on potential problems. Keep in mind, that the Report was geared for law enforcement personnel, and not the general public. The Report is somewhat middle of the road, not taking a strong stand on any particular issue or group.

If you trust the Federal Government, you would read the Report, lay it aside, and forget about it.

If you do not trust the Federal Government, you would probably read the Report again and again.

I read it again and again, not because of distrust, but because of intrigue.

At second and third reading, some obvious things jump out at the reader:

1. The main potential for domestic terrorism is from rabid third world leaders. However, this topic is totally absent from the Report. Have we so soon forgotten about the World Trade Center bombing? What about Iran and Iraq? No longer a threat? Is the real threat today from Americans?
2. The Report states several times that the potential for domestic terrorism from domestic religious groups, militias, apocalyptic cults, etc. is very, very low. This being the case, why the Report? And why the thrust to convince law enforcement personnel that it is a threat worthy of preparation?
3. The Report carefully leads the reader through discussions of "terrorists" and "extremists" and "cults" and then, in the same text describes those who believe in the imminent return of Christ and the advent of the Apocalypse, those who are preparing for Y2K by storing food and supplies, those who fear the erosion of the Second Amendment, etc. Sorta guilt by association, one could read. While the Report is careful in this regard, it leaves ample room for extending the definitions to fit those individuals and groups that are clearly NOT a threat to the United States, or its Government, so long as that Government abides by the US Constitution and leaves them alone. Does the FBI fear law-abiding citizens who prepare for possible disaster, Christians who accept the Book of Revelation, citizens who bear arms?
4. The Report make absolutely no attempt to debunk the stated "myths" that could fuel domestic terrorism, such as gun control, the New World Order, UN troops on US soil, etc. One would think that the FBI would at least comment that such "myths" either have no merit or do not pose the threat that many concerned Americans have. But to leave the issue alone suggests that the issue has a basis. And if there is a basis, America may be in danger. What if those crying "Wolf! Wolf!" are right?
5. Examples of "threats" included the Waco "incident." The Report even states that "investigation of these radical units must be conducted within strict legal parameters." Apparently, the author of the Report has not listened to Ted Koppel on NightLine in which even the liberal Ted chastised the FBI and other government agencies for the brutal and illegal handling of Waco, and then lied to the American people about it.

What do you think? If you are an objective American, with at least some level of patriotism and some level of skepticism, then you should read the Report for yourself.

If the Report is simply information for the law enforcement community, so be it. They are doing their jobs.

If the Report has a deeper meaning, another purpose, then stay alert. Rhetoric is cheap. Rhetoric can be deceiving.

We all remember Lucy. The fiery redhead married to Ricky.

My favorite episode was the candy factory. Lucy and Ethel, needing a job, decided to work at a candy factory, picking up bits of freshly made chocolate off a conveyor belt, wrapping them, and placing them in a container. A fairly easy to control, routine job, with no stress.

But we all know what happened. As Lucy and Ethel lock into a steady, leisurely pace of wrapping the chocolate, the factory supervisor notes their proficiency and shouts "Speed, up the conveyor belt!" Suddenly, without warning, the conveyor belt speeds up. Suddenly, without warning, an easy job becomes unbearingly difficult. Lucy and Ethel struggle to keep up with the increasing flow of chocolate needing wrapping. Finally, in desperation, Lucy begins stuffing chocolate inside her mouth, hat, and dress. A funny scene. We all enjoyed it. We still do.

It’s funny how this comic situation mirrors life.

As "the plain, every day decent salt-of-the-earth" American worker goes through life, the once easy pace has become more and more intense. So much going on. So much to do and think about, compared to thirty years ago. So much confusion. Something’s wrong with America, but what?

But there is no place to put the chocolate.

Those who seek to destroy this nation have studied Lucy long and hard. Not that they have a penchant for comedy, but rather a penchant for destruction.

The influx of heathen, immoral influence and the exflux of fundamental education are destroying our public school system. Our political system is corrupt. Our economy roller coasters up and down, and the public is always anxious about where it will end up. Our military, once the greatest in history, now decommissions weapon systems and teaches tolerance for sodomy. Our balance of trade has shifted from home to Communist nations. Churches and the preaching of the Judeo-Christian ethic are under attack. Our borders are porous. We have no time for the elderly, and we could care less about the unborn. We work our butts off, only to watch the Government take half of it away and waste it on programs we detest. We see the evening news. Bad news. Confusing news. Distorted news. We don’t believe half of it, and are sick of hearing the other half. All the politicians lying and jockeying for position. Finally, we have enough.

We decide to write our Congressman, but then realize that they are part of the problem.

You can only take so much.

It’s too much to do, too much to think about.

We conclude: "I am only one person. I cannot deal with this anymore."

We change the TV station and watch the ball game.

Maybe, just maybe, if we ignore this insanity it will all go away.

Well intentioned, well meaning, but misguided, misinformed and uneducated on the basic premise of the second amendment. That was this writers knee jerk reaction to the so called "Million Mom March". However this was no "grass roots" organized march. Rather it was a clearly orchestrated gathering with Bill Clinton written all over it. March organizer, Donna Dees-Thomases sister-in-law of Susan Thomasas, is a friend and close political advisor to Hillary Clinton. And of course , Rosie O'Donnell, a rabid anti gun mouth piece for the Clinton administration was there as emcee.

Meant to be seen as a general upwelling of the good moms in America, the Million Mom March is nothing more than the left lying to the gullible, ignorant moms who want the government to do their job for them.

Yes, some have lost a child to gunfire, tragic, heartbreaking and more. But why blame the guns? Many of these tragedies are sadly turned into political statements for gun control. In many cases an armed citizen would have saved lives. In many cases the parent was clearly to blame, yet that is never mentioned. Case in point, the six year old that lived in the crack house that obtained the clearly illegal gun and used it to kill another child at school. Bill Clinton and his cronies in the news media used this as yet another reason to pass more laws for gun control. The fact is there has never been gun control when criminals are involved.

In Australia all guns have been banned. That’s right, everyone has had to turn in ALL their guns and they were all melted down. It’s no surprise then that all manners of crime are up. Home break ins, something the Aussies had never been witness to in any great numbers, are up 100 fold. People are prisoners in there own homes. Brazen criminals rob, assault, rape and kill with impunity, fearing no personal harm. Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent and in the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent!

Clearly more guns in responsible hands are a deterrent to crime. But that’s not why Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms was put as the second amendment to protect us from government that’s out of control. Big non responsive, tyrannical government that makes laws by itself with little or no input from the representatives of the people. Our president is doing that now. Signing executive orders to sidestep congress.

When the guns are gone you will have no rights. Remember the Elián photo? Clearly an illegal act by the federal government.

Write your Senators and Congressmen. Tell them "No more gun laws". Tell them to stand for the second amendment.

If you think that "Slick" had anything much to do with the recent stock market boom consider the following:

1. Stock market growth depends on corporate profit growth which, in turn, depends on the consumer base spending their money for goods and services.
2. The Department of Labor statistics show that, in general, peoples spending habits increase to age 49, then decline in anticipation of retirement. This trend has been in evidence for many decades.
3. The annual birth rate in the U.S. was 2.7 to 2.9 million between 1910 and 1920 with two spikes slightly over 3.0 million. A trend down occurred from the early 20’s to the early 30’s with the bottom at about 2.3 million. The birth rate then trended up to the all-time peak of nearly 4.5 million in the mid-50’s (the well known Baby Boom) followed by a choppy decline to about 3.2 million in the early 70’s. From then to 1990 another up-trend occurred peaking at about 4.2 million in the late 80’s. Charts of items 2 and 3 are shown below.

Good enough? Then all we need to do is convert the birth rate to population and slide it over 49 years to define the projected spending trends and the economic expectations for businesses/corporations and the stock market. That is exactly what Harry S. Dent, Jr. did in his book titled "The Great Boom Ahead" published in 1993. Dent uses the S&P 500 index as a surrogate for the economy and demonstrates that since the 1920’s the number of people between the ages of 45 and 50 correlates amazingly closely to the performance of the economy. This correlation is shown below.

This chart is what we all wanted to know. The current up-trend in the number of big spending 49 year olds will continue until about 2006 and then run about level until 2010. From 2010 until the early 2020’s a choppy decline will occur – that period will not be good for growth in businesses and the stock market.

This analysis in no way suggests that short term market movements are predictable nor that there will not be the usual corrections along the way. It does clearly show that Bill Clinton really had nothing whatsoever to do with the recent phenomenal business growth – the foundation for that was laid in the early 1930’s, long before Clinton was born. The peak occurred in the mid 1950’s when he was just a boy.

by U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Texas)

Do you want our military to be moved under the United Nations' command without congressional approval? Do you know that a change in policy now requires our military to absorb a nuclear first strike and only retaliate afterward? Representative Jack Metcalf served in the U.S. Army, and I was an Air Force flight surgeon, and as members of the U.S. House of Representatives we think these are terrible policies.

Unfortunately, Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD 25) takes the matter of U.S. troops in U.N. operations completely out of the hands of Congress. And PDD 60 replaces the proven deterrence of our launch-on-warning policy with a new policy requiring the U.S. military to take a hit the Pentagon brass will probably know is coming, retaliating afterward. PDD 25 and PDD 60 are classified and the exact texts have not been made available even when requested by members of Congress, but from the "summary" of each PDD we have been allowed to see and sources familiar with the actual documents, that is what they appear to say.

And we don't want the White House to implement international treaties that are bad for America. By law, the president must submit international agreements to the U.S. Senate for advice and consent, and two-thirds of the senators must concur. Some treaties, like the so-called "treaty on global warming," are so costly and unfair to Americans that President Clinton is actually afraid to submit them to the U.S. Senate out of fear the senators won't go along.

In fact, President Clinton wrote Executive Order 13107 (EO 13107) so he could implement such treaties on his own...and we don't like that either. It certainly is unconstitutional.

Something is awfully wrong with these executive orders (PDDs are really just a fancy category of EOs). True, executive orders have a place in running the routine business of the executive branch and seeing that laws passed by Congress are duly executed. It is a president's expansion of that limited authority in order to do things he could never get accomplished through the legitimate legislative process that has given us the crises we see today. Today, if President Clinton wants a law he knows the peoples' duly elected representatives won't pass, all he does is write an EO or PDD and it "becomes law." Isn't that what an old-fashioned king would do...ignore the constitutional limits on his authority and rule by edict?

Some of us have had enough. That's why Jack Metcalf and I recently introduced H.R. 2655 in the U.S. House of Representatives. We call the bill The Separation of Powers Restoration Act, and if it passes, it will stop this president and future presidents from trying to run our country as though they had been elected king.

It's a mistake, though, to place all the blame for this abuse of power on any single president. Congress and the courts have stood by while the misuse of executive orders has grown to gigantic proportions. That's why succeeding presidents have been tempted to see how much more they can get away with, until there are now over 13,000 executive orders on the books! Congress just isn't paying attention.

When Congress is asleep at the switch, it's up to the public to send them a wake-up call. In order for Representative Metcalf and I to get our legislation brought to the floor of the House for debate, we are asking every citizen who shares our concern to contact their own representative and ask him or her to become a co-sponsor. Thanks to the Internet, that's a lot easier than it used to be. Just go to www.executiveorders.org and follow the simple instructions to see if your congressman is already a co-sponsor of H.R. 2655, and if not, press a button to tell them to get on board. If you don't have Internet access at home or at the office, try your local library.

What the president is doing with these EOs and PDDs is just un-American, there's no other way to put it. A chief complaint American colonists made against King George before the Revolutionary War was that he took powers that were not rightfully his, and then as king, used those powers to the disadvantage of the people. How is that different from what the president is doing now? If you go to www.executiveorders.org and find your representative is not a co-sponsor of H.R. 2655, will you ask him that question?

It's time to send Congress a wake-up call!

Ron Paul, M.D., is a member of Congress from Texas.