The Extraordinary Measures Needed to Kill the Bill — Updated with Vote Numbers

Posted by Dan Perrin (Profile)

Sunday, December 20th at 4:22PM EST

153 Comments

The corruption of using the public treasury as a check book to buy the votes of Senator Nelson and Senator Sanders — in the face not only overwhelming public opposition, but also in the face of a public that now wants Congress to do nothing on health care — means that extraordinary measures are needed to kill ObamaCare.

This plan, if executed properly, will kill the bill and it will give opponents two more bites at the apple, after it passes the Senate.

There are some atmospheric conditions that will help this plan work. For example, both sides of the net roots should cease fire on posts against each other. There must be a truce until the bill is dead. The target is the bill, not each other.

So, for those on the left who have decided to kill this bill, they are welcome to join in this the kill-the-bill fun.

Rationale: There are many reasons in agreement between the right and the left and the American public about why this bill must be killed:

1. It will increase health care costs;
2. The individual mandate is massive government intrusion on individual freedom, and is a gift to the private insurers, and disproportionately impacts lower-income families;
3. The fantasies of CBO’s assumptions notwithstanding, this bill will accelerate our march to financial insolvency; and,
4. Passage of the bill merely reinforces the practice of buying votes with debt issued by the U.S. Treasury;
5. Among many other reasons, in the words of Howard Dean, the bill does more harm than good.

The Plan: First, conservatives will object to the appointment of the conferees. This is not a motion, so it is non-debatable. An objection cannot be overcome unless the Senator making the objection caves. Let’s hope Senator McConnell agrees with this approach — but regardless, the objection shall be made.

This forces two votes in the U.S. House, one vote to amend the Senate bill on the House floor, since the Senate bill likely cannot pass the House unamended, and will force another vote on final passage of the amended House bill.

So, first, conservatives force two votes in the House, by preventing the appointment of the conferees, and therefore, preventing a House-Senate Conference.

Second, the left will focus on three separate issues to kill the bill in the House. The object of these issues is not to support these policies per say, but to add items to the House bill that will be so objectionable that when the bill goes back over to the Senate, that the Dems lose one or more of their 60 votes.

The Public Option: The progressive’s net roots should hold accountable the Democratic House members who said they would not vote for the bill if there was no public option. Progressives need to produce enough votes to force the public option back into the bill. Forcing the public option back into the bill is in the progressive’s interest since it will show they have the political power to do it, and will set a precedent for a new health care reform baseline in the House for Democrats. It is in conservative’s interest for this to happen because if it does, Senator Lieberman’s vote reverts to a NO.

The Nelson Buy-Off: Both the left and the right net roots will focus on pulling the Nebraska and Vermont free pass on increased Medicaid spending, on the basis that it is a corrupt back room deal that may be unconstitutional on the basis that it violates the equal protection clause (the 14th amendment to the Constitution.)

Unions: Unions must pull the Senate tax on Cadillac health plans, and replace it with the House tax on individuals. (I know, I can’t believe I just wrote that either!) This will force Senators, when the bill goes back to the Senate, to oppose the bill which could force the Dems lower than 60 votes.

Hold the No Votes: Conservatives need to hold and add one or two more no votes to the 39 House votes against the bill, among those Democrats who have concerns about their own re-election or who have announced their retirement — since the leverage from the Speaker has substantially decreased. If every No vote on the original House bill holds, there only needs to be two additional no votes.

Pro-Life and Pro-Abortion Forces: In short, have at it. Given the Stupak amendment majority in the House, the pro-lifers must stick Stupak back on the bill, so that when it is sent back to the Senate, the pro-abortion majority can pull Stupak back off. When the bill goes back to the Senate, the pro-abortion forces can remove Stupak, just as they did a couple of weeks ago. Once Stupak is pulled again from the Senate it must go back to the House to be amended, or die there.

I am willing to coordinate these actions with the left in real-time, and work with the Progressives who want to kill the bill — to share intelligence and whip counts. This way the left and the right working together will accomplish not only what we want, but what the American people want.

Oh, I did not mention this in the original post, but should have:

we do not need any more than 42 votes on the House floor, and last time there were 39 No votes.

Assuming we have a hard base of 25 no Dem votes, then the net roots need to produce eight House votes on either the abortion or public option question.

The Stupak folks ought to be able produce ten additional no votes.

This is not difficult math. And MoveOn.org is already telling its members to oppose the Senate bill

Not at Yes is the New No

Sen. Nelson (D-NE) Rejects Abortion “Compromise” — Dan_Perrin’s blog - RedState

They are eating each other

Health-care bill wouldn't bring real reform

Howard Dean says he would not vote for the bill as it is.

Congress' power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States...." also does not validate an individual mandate. The Constitution requires that a tax be apportioned on the basis of the census population, and not vary based upon factors such as the financial condition of the state's residents. "[But] this [constitutional] requirement will be impossible to meet based upon the variety of exceptions provided in the mandate,

The constitution is not a serious matter to them

Is Obamacare Constitutional?

A reporter recently asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) where in the Constitution Congress is given the authority to force Americans to buy health insurance, she responded, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Responding to a follow-up question to this non-answer, Pelosi's press secretary said, "That is not a serious question."

We think otherwise at The Heritage Foundation. So should all Americans who value the liberties which our Constitution protects. And once the mandate question is thoroughly examined through the lens of the Constitution's original meaning, the answer is inescapable: it is not constitutional.

"For those with a traditional understanding of the Constitution as a charter of liberty (as opposed to the 'living version'), the list of Congress' powers in Article I, Section 8, grants it no authority to require any such thing, "writes Heritage expert Bob Moffit. To defend their unprecedented expansion of federal power, Obamacare's proponents rely upon excessively broad interpretations of Congress' powers -- namely the powers to regulate interstate commerce and impose taxes.

Poll: Only 38 percent support health care bill - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com

Poll: Only 38 percent support health care bill - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com: "Poll: Only 38 percent support health care bill

The second leg of Quinnipiac's big national poll dropped this morning -- and it shows a serious erosion of support for Congressional health reform efforts and the president's performance on the issue -- along with an all-time low 46 percent approval rating for the POTUS.

Most ominously for Dems: Nearly two-thirds of registered voters polled said extending coverage to 30 million-plus people will result in a decline in the quality of their own health care. That gives plenty of room to the GOP to personalize attacks on the plan, Obama and Congress."

Poll: Only 38 percent support health care bill - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com

Poll: Only 38 percent support health care bill - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com: "Poll: Only 38 percent support health care bill

The second leg of Quinnipiac's big national poll dropped this morning -- and it shows a serious erosion of support for Congressional health reform efforts and the president's performance on the issue -- along with an all-time low 46 percent approval rating for the POTUS.

Most ominously for Dems: Nearly two-thirds of registered voters polled said extending coverage to 30 million-plus people will result in a decline in the quality of their own health care. That gives plenty of room to the GOP to personalize attacks on the plan, Obama and Congress."

State of the Union as I see it

Over 10% unemployment

(actual # is getting close to 20%)

Spending out of control

No health care bill

Were losing in Afghanistan

The president in Copenhagen

Global warming proven a scam

Yet Congress still wants Cap & Trade

Democrats cannot agree with democrats

GOP in a coma

Terrorists including KSM coming back to NYC

Still no Osama

Obama @ 47% approval (a record low)

Shhh! Don’t confuse Reid with history while he’s playing the race card!

By Michelle Malkin • December 7, 2009 03:11 PM

It was the GOP that fought slavery and the Democrat Party that battled to preserve it.

It’s the Democrat Party, not the GOP, that boasts an ex-Klansman among its senior leaders.

But don’t confuse Harry Reid with history while he invokes slavery to lambaste the GOP for opposing the government-run health care takeover.

The New GM (Government Motors) Proudly Introduces The 2010 Obama This car runs on hot air, bullshit, lies and broken promises. It has three wheels that speed the vehicle through tight leftist turns. It comes complete with two Tela Prompters programmed to help the occupants talk their way out of any violations, muffed statements and fuzzy mathematics. The transparent canopy reveals the plastic smiles still on the faces of all the happy owners. Comes in head sizes S, M, L, XL and 2XL. Highly recommended by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barney Franks. It won't get you to work, but hey, there aren't any jobs anyway!

---

GOP sweep: Big governor victories in Virginia, NJ

• 1672 votes
• Send
• Share
• Print

Featured Topics:

• Barack Obama

Play VideoABC News – Republican Bob McDonnell Wins Virginia Guv Race

• Slideshow:Elections
• Play VideoVideo:McDonnell: Lead Va. 'Better than we found it'AP
• Play VideoVideo:Obama Referendum? FOX News

AP – Republican Governor-elect Bob McDonnell waves to the crowd at his victory party in Richmond, Va., Tuesday, …

By LIZ SIDOTI, AP National Political Writer – 1 hr 28 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Independents who swept Barack Obama to a historic 2008 victory broke big for Republicans on Tuesday as the GOPwrested political control from Democrats in Virginia and New Jersey, a troubling sign for the president and his party heading into an importantmidterm election year.

Conservative Republican Bob McDonnell's victory in the Virginia governor's race over Democrat R. Creigh Deeds and moderate Republican Chris Christie's ouster of unpopular New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine was a double-barreled triumph for a party looking to rebuild after being booted from power in national elections in 2006 and 2008.

Elsewhere on Tuesday, Maine voters rejected a state law that would allow same-sex couples to wed. If supporters had prevailed, it would have marked the first time that the electorate in any state endorsedgay marriage.

WAYS IN WHICH
SPIDER-MAN DOES NOT
"DO WHATEVER A
SPIDER CAN."

BY JON MITCHELL

- - - -

Does not procreate with other spiders.

Does not wash down the drain easily.

Does not ambulate octopedally.

Does not produce warm glow of satisfaction at one's own beneficent and merciful nature upon escorting him gently outside in an upturned drinking glass.

MORE LISTS

Send to a friend

The Constitution and the Rule of Law
by Jacob G. Hornberger, August 1992

In 1944, Friedrich A. Hayek wrote one of the most thought-provoking books of our time — The Road to Serfdom. Hayek warned that Great Britain and the United States were abandoning their heritage of liberty and adopting the economic principles of the Nazis, fascists, and socialists. It was not a message which the politicians, bureaucrats, and social planners of that time wanted to hear. Hayek, who would later win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics Science, was vilified as an old-fashioned reactionary.

No one today can seriously dispute that Hayek was right. Although Americans, for example, continue to operate under the delusion that they live in a free-enterprise nation, for the last sixty years they have traveled the same moral, philosophical, and economic mad as their enemies — the road to the welfare-state, regulated-economy way of life — the road to serfdom.

Hayek was also a lawyer. In fact, some of his greatest contributions have been in the area of law. Among his finest books are The Constitution of Liberty and his three-volume work, Law, Legislation, and Liberty.

Two of the most important legal concepts that Hayek underscored were, first, the nature and purposes of political constitutions and, second, the legal principle known as "the rule of law."

Few Americans today understand the true idea and purpose of the U.S. Constitution. They have been taught to believe — and do believe — that their rights emanate from the Constitution.

Hayek pointed out the true nature of rights and the Constitution. He observed that our American ancestors subscribed to the most radical principles of individualism and liberty ever known to man. They truly believed the ideas set forth by John Locke and Thomas Jefferson — that people have certain fundamental and inherent rights — life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness — and that these rights have been endowed by "Nature and Nature's God," not by government.

To protect themselves and their property from the violent acts of others, and to provide a means by which people could peacefully resolve their disputes, our ancestors established a national government. But there was one overriding concern: what would prevent our government from becoming destructive of the very ends for which it was formed?

The goal, then, was to institute a government which could be kept within a very narrow purpose: to protect, not regulate or destroy, the natural, God-given rights of the people.

So, while the Constitution instituted government, it also straightjacketed it. The Constitution set forth a very specific list of enumerated powers, as well as express prohibitions on the powers of the national government. As Hayek observes, the Constitution did not give the people rights. Instead, the Constitution was a law — a higher law — imposed on the officials of the national government to prevent them from interfering with preexisting rights.

In a series of judicial decisions in the 1800s and early 1900s, the concept of "substantive due process" came to be an established judicial doctrine. It held that life, liberty, and property were extensions of each other. A person has the fundamental right to sustain and improve his life through labor, engage in any economic enterprise without political interference, enter into mutually beneficial exchanges with others ("liberty of contract"), and accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth from these endeavors. The courts held that the exercise of these rights were beyond the reach of the majority — beyond the constitutionally granted powers of the government.

Equally important, the legal concept of "the rule of law" was incorporated into our judicial system. As Hayek explains, the rule of law means that people do not have to answer to the arbitrary decisions of governmental officials; instead, they guide their actions by what is prohibited by a clearly defined law. Freedom, therefore, means answering only to a well-defined, previously established law, rather than to the arbitrary and discretionary edicts of some.

Today, of course, the thinking of the American people is entirely different. Believing that their rights come from government, they believe that government can rightfully regulate or take them away. Thus, since the 1930s, the American people have lived under a political order in which governmental officials have omnipotent power over their lives and fortunes.

Moreover, unlike their ancestors, Americans today believe that politicians and bureaucrats can be trusted with unlimited political power. "We should elect the best people to public office and then trust them to do the right thing," is the prevailing attitude, for example, in the War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Illiteracy, and so forth. Americans believe that the constraints of the Constitution should be curtailed, if not ended. The idea that life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are fundamental, preexisting rights with which no governmental official can legitimately interfere is an alien notion to our fellow Americans. The belief is that Caesar — the state — should have the power to regulate and take away that which he has given.

And, unfortunately, the rule of law is also now considered an outdated legal concept. Today, people must answer to hundreds of thousands of arbitrary, unclear edicts from the politicians and bureaucrats rather than to clearly defined laws. For example, take the rules against "unfair business practices." If a businessman sells his product at a price lower than his competitors, he is subject to being prosecuted for predatory business practices. If he sells his product at the same price as others, he can be prosecuted for antitrust violations. Thus, since every businessman is always subject to a criminal prosecution which inevitably entails hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, he must always kowtow to his political and bureaucratic masters. He must answer to them rather than to a clearly defined law.

And the tax code is no different. Once a person bypasses the "standard deduction," he enters into the nether world of potential prosecution for tax violations. That is the beautiful thing (in the mind of the governmental official) about hundreds of thousands of rules and regulations — there is no way that a person can ever be in full compliance with all of them. Thus, each person who works his way through the maze of the IRS Code is always subject to criminal prosecution for violating one of the myriad of rules and regulations.

Let's look at a couple of real-world examples. Michael Milken, now serving jail time, is a good example of the hazards of abandoning the rule of law. Despite all the years that Milken worked on Wall Street, and all of the billions of dollars with which he dealt, the government was able to get him for violating only a few ridiculous and inane regulations. Another example — Leona Helmsley. Although paying several millions of dollars in income taxes, she supposedly committed the heinous crime of taking some improper deductions on her income-tax return, thereby depriving the politicians and bureaucrats of their milk; and so now she must serve four years in a federal penitentiary.

And why Milken and Helmsley? Two reasons. First, they make good victims, for they are rich — and Americans are taught in their public schools to hate the rich and covet their wealth. Second, wealthy people are the best vehicle by which the government can send its not-so-subtle message to us "regular' people: "Listen up, you little people — if the wealthiest and most influential among you cannot stand against us, then certainly neither can you. And if you try, we will smash you, just as we have smashed them — only a little faster. Obey and pay — or suffer the consequences."

Thus, even though they will never admit it openly, the American people live their lives filled with fear and terror. In public, they say, "I'm proud to be an American." In private, they shudder at the thought of having their doors bashed down by IRS agents or of having to &fend themselves in court against the mighty power of the U.S. government.

What will it take to abandon the road to serfdom which Americans have traveled during the last sixty years? The fast step is for people to pierce through to reality — to realize that what Hayek said was true — that the U.S. has, in fact, adopted the Nazi, fascist, and socialist economic principles of regulation of property and redistribution of wealth. The second step is to lose what the Russian people have lost — the terrifying and paralyzing fear of politicians and bureaucrats. And, third, since our government has become destructive of the ends for which it was formed, to alter or abolish it and implement new government designed to protect, not destroy, our lives and fortunes. Herein lies the road to freedom.

Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

If you have spent time in Washington:

Conservative…you are part of the problem.
Liberal…you have experience.

If you don’t have time in Washington:

Conservative….you have no experience.
Liberal….you represent change.

If you have wealth:

Conservative …you are greedy and a cheat who had advantages in life.
Liberal…you are successful and your life story is an inspiration.

If you don’t have wealth:

Conservative…you are low class.
Liberal…you are disadvantaged.

If you went to college:

Conservative…your academic pedigree is scrutinized.
Liberal….your degree speaks for itself.

If you didn’t go to college:

Conservative…you are un-educated.
Liberal…you are an artist/activist.

If you own a business:

Conservative…you are a profiteer.
Liberal…you provide jobs to the community.

If you are working class:

Conservative….you’re just a (insert job title or trade).
Liberal…you are a proletariat who finds strength in numbers.

If you believe in the wisdom of the constitution:

Conservative…you are narrow minded.
Liberal…you are a civil libertarian.

If you believe in individual freedoms:

Conservative….you have made peace with inequality.
Liberal….you are for choice.

If you take to the streets to voice your opinions:

Conservative…you are a thug.
Liberal…you are a demonstrator.

If you are religious:

Conservative….you are a fundamentalist.
Liberal…you are spiritual.

If you are serving in the military:

Conservative…you are a mindless killer.
Liberal…you wear the uniform of your country.

If you are popular:

Conservative….you have blind sheep followers.
Liberal…you are leading a movement.

If you are attractive:

Conservative…you are shallow and empty.
Liberal…you are stunning and a trend setter.

If you are un-attractive:

Conservative…you are just ugly.
Liberal…you are too intellectual to be concerned with your appearance.

If you enjoy an outdoors lifestyle:

Conservative…you are a hick.
Liberal…you are earthy.

During the 2008 primary, Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama did their best to out-protectionist each other. Obama was critical of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during the campaign, while Hillary said she was going to "stand up to China and other non-market countries."

All of this talk was geared to earn the support of the unions, who support protectionism. Before we go any farther, let's define protectionism. According to Wikipedia, protectionism "refers to policies or doctrines which "protect" businesses and workers within a country by restricting or regulating trade with foreign nations."

As president, Barack Obama has eased his rhetoric, but his protectionist moves have already started two trade wars.

Mexico

NAFTA required the United States to allow Mexican truck drivers to drive on all border state roads. This started in 1995. Outside of the North American Union crowd, the biggest complaint about this is the safety of Mexican trucks.

In 2007, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) inserted an amendment into a $106 billion transportation and housing spending bill and the Senate voted to cut off funding for the program. In an Associated Press article, Sidney Weintraub, a professor emeritus at the University of Texas LBJ School of Public Affairs in Austin said, "Under NAFTA, Mexico can seek retaliation against the U.S. for failing to adhere to the treaty’s requirements, including retaining tariffs on goods that the treaty eliminates."

In 2009, Dorgan returned. He inserted another amendment into a $410 billion spending bill. Congress passed it and Obama signed it, ending the program.

Mexico retaliated "against the U.S. for failing to adhere to the treaty’s requirements" by "retaining tariffs on goods." Mexico applied $2.4 billion worth of tariffs to close to 90 items from 40 U.S. states. Most of the products were agricultural.

In 1995, American exports to Mexico were $46 billion. After 10 years of NAFTA, the total had almost tripled, reaching $120 billion. Mexico is America's second biggest export market.

Canada

The $787 billion stimulus bill Obama signed into law contained a "Buy American" provision that economists warned against. The protectionist provision mandates that "only U.S.-made goods be used in projects funded by the bill." At the time, the Canadian government voiced concern.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper attempted to calm fears, saying, "I think President Obama himself said that he wants to ensure that these stimulus packages do not lead to protectionist measures in the U.S. or anywhere else."

Fast forward three months and you find The Washington Post reporting that Canadian suppliers are being turned away from jobs in America.

Ordered by Congress to "buy American" when spending money from the $787 billion stimulus package, the town of Peru, Ind., stunned its Canadian supplier by rejecting sewage pumps made outside of Toronto. After a Navy official spotted Canadian pipe fittings in a construction project at Camp Pendleton, Calif., they were hauled out of the ground and replaced with American versions. In recent weeks, other Canadian manufacturers doing business with U.S. state and local governments say they have been besieged with requests to sign affidavits pledging that they will only supply materials made in the USA.

What happened is simple, and rather devious. Rather than create federal programs to spend the stimulus money, Canadian firms say the United States is "filtering billions of federal dollars, which are subject to NAFTA rules, to municipalities, which let out the infrastructure contracts and are not subject to any trade agreements."

Canadians have responded in kind, with towns in Ontario putting measures in place to bar U.S. companies from municipal contracts. This could be the first shot in a growing trade war with Canada that threatens to lock U.S. based companies "out of billions of dollars worth of Canadian projects."

America exports more to Canada than to any other country, to a tune of $211.9 billion a year.

At Home

The "buy American" clause is even hurting businesses based in America. The Duferco Farrell Corp., located in Pennsylvania, has lost a job with its largest client, Wheatland Tube.

Here's the problem:

Due to the “buy American’’ provision in the $787 million national stimulus package, Wheatland Tube acknowledged Friday the company can’t buy steel from the Farrell steelmaker which is just several hundred yards from its local offices. The provision is being interpreted that steel used for public projects must be melted in the U.S.

Duferco’s Farrell plant buys slabs, which it said are generally not available in the U.S., overseas and then rolls them into coils.

A clause intended to stimulate jobs in the United States could end up costing 600 Americans theirs. Bob Miller, executive vice president of Duferco Farrell, told the Washington Post, "You need to tell me how inhibiting business between two companies located one mile apart is going to save American jobs. I've got 600 United Steel Workers out there who are going to lose their jobs because of this. And you tell me this is good for America?"

Ironically, the one person who fought for the clause was Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers Union. He told CTV flat out, "The fact of the matter is, this isn't protectionism."

There were people who said just the opposite. Kurt Karl, head of economic research at Swiss Re said, ""It's not a good time to initiate protectionist measures in any shape or form."

Bill Lane, the government affairs director for Caterpillar said, "There is no company that is going to benefit more from the stimulus package than Caterpillar, but I am telling you that by embracing Buy American you are undermining our ability to export U.S. produced products overseas,"

The Wall Street Journal wrote, "Increased protectionism didn't stimulate the American economy in 1930 and it won't now."

Time wrote that we were about to make the same mistake we made in the 1930s, hoping "government leaders have learned the lessons of the past." They are referring to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which raised tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods. More than a thousand economists petitioned then President Herbert Hoover not to sign the protectionist Smoot-Hawley tariff act. He did it anyway, and between 1929 and 1934, world trade declined by about 66%.

Rather than learn from the failures of the past, America is repeating them on a grand scale. To not expect the same results would be insane.

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

This is the complete text of Patrick Henry's speech
at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia on March 23, 1775.

No man, Mr. President, thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging.

And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained — we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!