“We have rights, as individuals, to give as much of our own money as we please to charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of public money.”

hmm, he must have read the old Constitution, the one before words, principles, and law lost all meaning. That Constitution limiting government before the despots took over with their criminally de facto inherent rights.

I couldn't just leave it at that, WOW ! ! ! ! !

Yes Mike and that was of the time when public funds were spent, everybody in the village, town, county, city, State, or country was to benefit from it depending on where th funding came from. Not special interests or a select few in society. Would have been great to live in those days and would be even greater if we could backtrack and reestablish the rule of natural law rights of men protected by our Constitution as the Law of the Land as it once was. When I leave this life that's what I would like to leave for my children. Not this national den of iniquity, God help me.

I understand that the congress has a bill before it to make 20% of charitable contributions tax deductable instead of the 100% we have now. Face it, much charitable giving is encouraged by the tax deductable feature. If passed, this bill would destroy many charities. Another example of government gone crazy. This congress just might pass this thing,

With crazies like Pelosi and Reed running the show, anything is possible.

Right on! Not only that Jim, but the mortgage tax deductions are proposed to be much smaller also. Why get the prices down? It would be better to rent!

What utter nonsense. No wonder he never amounted to much as a politician. He never read Jefferson or the others obviously. Jim charitable deductions have been limited for a long time, check on the rules. For wealthy givers they can only deduct like 1/2 of their income. They can carryover the other 1/2 deduction to a future year. What community, village, city, county, state, or nation could operate without taxes, never has, never will. And our Constitution does not say that its government cannot raise funds from the public.

The point is that its not the government's job to take care of the poor, feed the hungry, and otherwise take care of everyone. The government should be a referee only.

Where has our Country gone?I want it BACK!!!

Waffler, your half truths, misdirection, and shallow off topic reasoning and statements make you out to be one that wouldn't know the truth or freedom if they came up and bit you. Of course no government could exist without taxes BUT, there are moral methods of collection that do not implement larceny. “To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, 'to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.' For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.” (Thomas Jefferson) “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” (James Madison - 1751-1836) I guess ole Davey read Jefferson and other founders. Waffler, you should read them

Waffler you don't even bother to read the damn quote do you?

That government including the Feds have no rigbht to raise funds via taxation is utterly false. They have done it since the inception of the Republic. Crockett is full of crap and so are you guys,.

I think that, as Waffler so aptly demonstrates, the most dense members of our society prefer to cling to their ignorance, and deny what is right before their eyes if it doesn't agree with their preconceived opinion... and deny it with vulgarity and poor grammer.

Well, yet another case where Waffler has no clue what history teaches. While the rest of us have actually read the founders and know what they've talked about, Waffler likes to simply use some variation of "our founders said" without ever knowing if they actually said it... Luckily, the vast majority of persons who post to this blog have actually read the words of the founders and can call Waffler on his stupidity. Just because you reject the foundations of history, don't try to re-write them -- that's dishonest and makes you not only stupid... it makes you a liar.

Indicative of the change in American consciousness.

Logan knows nothing of stupidity. He is naive enough to accept Rush's old saw "the US is a republic not a democracy". Can't get any stupider than that!

Mike read what you wrote that Jefferson said. Congress can lay taxes, the Indian Fighter said that Congress cannot lay taxes. Which is it my friend.

All I can say to Waffler is: Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Waffler- you need to get someone to explain the quotes to you. You consistently try to denounce the quote while not even knowing what the quote was about. When anyone clarifies it for you you repeat the same ignorant crap you did before as if you had a point and of course you never do.

Jim, congress does not like private citizens horning in on its "charitable" enterprises. After all if we take care of our own problems we do not need them. Then they can't buy the votes of the unfortunate that have been ensnared in the Jackass parties poverty trap.

Waffler, you must be reading a quote other than the one posted. Crockett does not address in the quote above, in any way, shape, or form, the collection of taxes. Above, Crockett is talking about appropriating money, not collecting it.

i think its a load of crap!!!!!!!!!

In short, the Illuminati and corrupt Masonic government we had did not like Crockett because he spoke the truth. They were on their way to planning the Civil War by Albert Pike, Mason and Luciferian in order for the European Invasion set to happen in 1863 or 1864. We were saved by the Czar of Russia by sending ships to NY harbor. Really angered the Rothschilds. Anyway, we still paid for the property even though we won the war go figure. Good quote.

Some people think somebody killed davy crockett during the War, but I think somebody killed davy crockett after the war.

whoa, you all are ok with me but some are as cantankerous as a wolverine getting up in the morning. anyone here know of the rothschild family and the history of banking? Taxes we do not need no stinking taxes. Give back the government's right to issue credit at a normal interest rate and end the foreign private bankers monopoly, this is what I see as the problem today. and for all of you who wish to step on my words here I will say I'm no expert on taxes and banking but I do know what is right and what is wrong and debt is the wrong way to go. well I'm going back to the deep woods where I can truly be free, give me a call when you want to take back the country so me and my barr friend Fred the grizzly can come and stand shoulder to shoulder with you and take back the country from these private bankers

Sad to think that as recent as Coolidge's administration, the federal budget was smaller than the states, then came the socialist big government venture that never ends...

Waffler, Smith <- "For most of our nation's history, individual taxpayers rarely had any significant contact with Federal tax authorities as most of the Federal government's tax revenues were derived from excise taxes, tariffs, and customs duties." http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

You all missed... It means that congress men shouldn't pilfer money from public funds for personal benefit. I believe that when this is taken to a logical conclusion, Davy Crockett would be fully against pork spending - because it would be a congressman pilfering for himself and his purposes in order to try to buy re-election. Davy Crockett was a man who held to principle on all issues, unlike the Democrats who vote the party line and the many Republicans who are addicted to pork.

Folks sure like to read into quotes (and even worse, our Constitution) what they want to think. Crockett was a true statesman. He saw his duty to the Constitution, the Nation, and his constituents as the job. Not special interests, not spending and excising money from taxpayers to fund unconstitutional pet projects. The Government was NEVER intended (I defy anyone to find in the Constitution or any of our founding father's letters where they meant otherwise) as a blanket "insurance policy" for everyone against all losses, including those resulting from laziness, complacency, or even "acts of God". But then politicians figured out the scam - you can buy votes by giving away cash from the treasury (and now it is being done when the money isn't even IN the treasury... taxing our unborn grandchildren).

Just for context, congress at the time was debating a $10,000 (I believe) gift for the widow of recently deceased military hero. This was part of Davy's speech against that appropriation. Truely, a man of honor!

When Crockett went back to TN to campaign for another term he came across a farmer plowing his field. He sat upon his horse till the farmer came abreast of him. He greeted him and then proceeded to ask him if he could count on his vote again. The farmer responded that he was not sure. When Crockett wanted to discuss the farmer told him he had a field to plow. But he would be willing to talk with him later that evening at the town hall meeting. Crockett went along his way and waited for the meeting to assemble that evening. When everyone was assembled he took the stage to give his speech. But he was interrupted and told that they had an agenda but he would be able to speak at the end of it. He listened to them voice their concerns about what was going on in the community, the state and the country. They discussed other candidates to send to DC. When it was Crockett's turn he gave his speech and asked if he could count on their support. Most were not sure that they could vote for him again. Perplexed he asked them to explain. They then told him that they did not feel it was the government's right to take the money they pay in taxes to support their government to be used to support the community of DC. There was a fire in DC and the congressmen that were in town rushed to assist in putting it out. Then they unilaterally decided to "give" the people who had lost their houses money from the treasury to compensate them and give them relief. According to the people in his TN community, that is what state and local taxes, as well as charity from the other people within that community is for. The people of TN do not pay taxes to the government to give out in charity to someone in DC. No one in DC was worrying about the fires, floods and other weather problems, etc. in TN. They didn't ask the government for help in those instances, but rather came together as a community to help their neighbors. After careful consideration, Crockett agreed. Federal money in the treasury thru taxation of the population was to support the government ... not the various communities around the fledgling country.

This is spurious. This has been debunked repeatedly.
Here is proven quote from Crockett: "the rich require but little legislation. We should occasionally legislate for the poor."

There's no better person to learn about liberty then that of Davy Crockett. 

"A Humbling Lesson — Congressman Davy Crockett learns about limited government"
This is one of my very favorite reads about Davy Crockett:
********************

Not Yours To Give
Davy Crockett on The Role Of Government

from: The Life of Colonel David Crockett
http://hushmoney.org/Davy_Crockett_Farmer_Bunce.htm

compiled by: Edward S. Elis (1884)