Francis Scott Key and the Battle of Baltimore

(The latest newsletter from 'The Wall Builders' focuses on Francis Scott Key during the War of 1812, and his penning of the poem that was adopted as our beloved National Anthem.  It is fascinating stuff!)

The Battle of Baltimore   200 years ago, the Battle of Baltimore was fought in the War of 1812 as a part of the British's attempt to reclaim America. Having just burned the U. S. Capitol and the White House, the British boldly advanced on Baltimore and Fort McHenry. The Americans there defended against two land attacks, only to have the British begin bombarding Fort McHenry from their ships at sea.   Fort McHenry had been named for Constitution signer James McHenry, who was Secretary of War under both President George Washington and President John Adams.  Interestingly, McHenry’s own son John fought as a volunteer in that battle  -- a battle best known for birthing America's national anthem: "The Star Spangled Banner." Before the battle began, Francis Scott Key, local attorney on a mission from President James Madison, boarded a British ship to secure the release of a prisoner taken by the British. Although successful in his mission, the British held Key aboard the ship until the attack was finished.   Anxiously watching as the fleet fired round after round into the fort, darkness fell, but the fierce bombardment continued throughout the night. When the guns finally fell silent, Key worried that the Fort had fallen. But when the sun arose, he spied the American flag still flying over the fort, unconquered!   Still aboard the ship, on the back of an envelope he began jotting down lines recording what he saw and felt. Later that day after arriving ashore, he finished the poem. Originally called “The Defense of Ft. McHenry,” it would eventually become the national anthem, “The Star-Spangled Banner.” It was printed shortly after the battle in the 1814 Analectic Magazine (shown below from our WallBuilders Library).   Francis Scott Key, a committed Christian, contemplated giving up his profession to become a minister, but decided to continue in law. He befriended John Randolph (a U.S. Congressman who openly expressed a preference for the Muslim faith and an opposition to Christianity) and persuaded him to embrace Christianity, after which Randolph became a strong advocate for his new-found faith. Key wrote Randolph: [M]ay I always hear that you are following the guidance of that blessed Spirit that will 'lead you into all truth,' leaning on that Almighty arm that has been extended to deliver you, trusting only in the only Savior, and 'going on' in your way to Him 'rejoicing.' Key served on the board of the American Bible Society and also the American Sunday School Union. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is REAL history, folks, and it needs to be studied and understood by all Americans in this day and age so far removed from these key historical events.   As the country ages, many of these once known histories are being lost--or changed-- and much of what once was considered necessary knowledge is being whitewashed to exclude any religious references in regards to the founding of this great country, in favor of secularist beliefs and interpretations.   Learn for yourself the REAL history of this country. Maybe...just maybe, you will have your eyes opened, and understand what the United States has lost due to progressive reforms that blithely explain religious influence away as coincidental, unintended or who purposely change the facts [of history] altogether.

President Obama's Ambivelence on Foreign Policy

An article by Charles Krauthammer (of the Washington Post) in today's Provo Daily Herald expounds on the lousy job President Obama is doing regarding the invasion of Ukraine by Russian military forces.  Here's the article:

"At his first press briefing after the beheading of American James Foley, President Obama stunned the assembled when he admitted that he had no strategy for confronting ISIS, a.k.a. the Islamic State, in Syria. Yet it was not nearly the most egregious, or consequential, thing he said.

Idiotic, yes. You’re the leader of the free world. Even if you don’t have a strategy — indeed, especially if you don’t — you never admit it publicly.

However, if Obama is indeed building a larger strategy, an air campaign coordinated with allies on the ground, this does take time. George W. Bush wisely took a month to respond to 9/11, preparing an unusual special ops-Northern Alliance battle plan that brought down Taliban rule in a hundred days.

We’ll see whether Obama comes up with an ISIS strategy. But he already has one for Ukraine: Write it off. Hence the more shocking statement in that Aug. 28 briefing: Obama declaring Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — columns of tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery and a thousand troops brazenly crossing the border — to be nothing new, just “a continuation of what’s been taking place for months now.”

And just to reaffirm his indifference and inaction, Obama mindlessly repeated his refrain that the Ukraine problem has no military solution. Yes, but does he not understand that diplomatic solutions are largely dictated by the military balance on the ground?
Vladimir Putin’s invasion may be nothing new to Obama. For Ukraine, it changed everything. Russia was on the verge of defeat. Now Ukraine is. That’s why Ukraine is welcoming a cease-fire that amounts to capitulation.

A month ago, Putin’s separatist proxies were besieged and desperate. His invasion to the southeast saved them. It diverted the Ukrainian military from Luhansk and Donetsk, allowing the rebels to recover, while Russian armor rolled over Ukrainian forces, jeopardizing their control of the entire southeast. Putin even boasted that he could take Kiev in two weeks.
Why bother? He’s already fracturing and subjugating Ukraine, re-creating Novorossiya (“New Russia”), statehood for which is one of the issues that will be up for, yes, diplomacy.
Which makes incomprehensible Obama’s denial to Ukraine of even defensive weapons — small arms, anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles. Indeed, his stunning passivity in the face of a dictionary-definition invasion has not just confounded the Ukrainians. It has unnerved the East Europeans. Hence Obama’s reassurances on his trip to the NATO summit in Wales.
First up, Estonia. It seems to be Obama’s new “red line.” I’m sure they sleep well tonight in Tallinn now that Obama has promised to stand with them. (Remember the State Department hashtag #UnitedforUkraine?)

To back up Obama’s words, NATO is touting a promised rapid-reaction force of about 4,000 to be dispatched to pre-provisioned bases in the Baltics and Poland within 48 hours of an emergency. (Read: Russian invasion.)

First, we’ve been hearing about European rapid-reaction forces for decades. They’ve amounted to nothing.

Second, even if this one comes into being, it is a feeble half-measure. Not only will troops have to be assembled, dispatched, transported and armed as the fire bell is ringing, but the very sending will require some affirmative and immediate decision by NATO. Try getting that done. The alliance is famous for its reluctant, slow and fractured decision-making. (See: Ukraine.) By the time the Rapid Reactors arrive, Russia will have long overrun their yet-to-be-manned bases.
The real news from Wales is what NATO did not do. It did not create the only serious deterrent to Russia: permanent bases in the Baltics and eastern Poland that would act as a tripwire. Tripwires produce automaticity. A Russian leader would know that any invading force would immediately encounter NATO troops, guaranteeing war with the West.

Which is how we kept the peace in Europe through a half-century of Cold War. U.S. troops in West Germany could never have stopped a Russian invasion. But a Russian attack would have instantly brought America into a war — a war Russia could not countenance.

It’s what keeps the peace in Korea today. Even the reckless North Korean leadership dares not cross the DMZ, because it would kill U.S. troops on its way to Seoul, triggering war with America.
That’s what deterrence means. And what any rapid-reaction force cannot provide. In Wales, it will nonetheless be proclaimed a triumph. In Estonia, in Poland, as today in Ukraine, it will be seen for what it is — a loud declaration of reluctance by an alliance led by a man who is the very embodiment of ambivalence."

I absolutely has to respond...

"I was worried about Obama even before the 2008 election. He had no clear strategy for anything; let alone specifics on resolving any issues at all. He is a terrific orator; which got him elected. But it was easy to see that he was an empty-suited talking head who was more interested in the position, than in doing anything that would strengthen the country and move us all forward, while taking care of our commitments overseas.

As we have seen, President Obama (and his Cabinet) STILL has no plans to do anything constructive on any issue facing this country. His Foreign Policy is completely missing, and under his "Leadership" the US is crumbling under mountains of added debt, Foreign Policy miscues, scandals that were promised to have accountability but for which no one has been held accountable, and his constantly passing the buck on any criticism that comes his way. 

 Just recently he abjured on yet another issue...Immigration. Rather than taking action, he passes on anything until the mid-term, effectively telling everyone that he doesn't even want to really fix anything. Add in his dictator-like proclamation that he will universally do what Congress will not, and basically making law over the objections of the American people, and you cannot objectively look at everything and then tell me that he has the best interest of the United States in mind, or that he even "Supports and Upholds the Constitution of the United States, and will defend it from all enemies...", as stipulated in the Presidential Oath of Office.

The guy is a joke as President. In my opinion, he is even worse that Gee! W. Bushie as President--as if that were remotely possible.

As far as the Ukraine is concerned, they are an ally of the United States, yet Obama sees no need for any action that would guarantee our ally continued sovereignty over an oppressive regime that is openly flaunting its military might and [basically] telling the world they will do whatever they want; international opposition be damned. I full understand that the US really has no business making themselves the international police force they have become; but when we start neglecting our allies in their darkest hour, we are setting a precedent that tells everyone that they are on their own, and our commitments are worthless, and our treaties are lies. And many Americans fail to comprehend why our standing in the international community has become pretty much worthless.

Thanks, President Obama, for your empty promises, your lack of strategy on everything, and your obvious lack of caring about anything happening in the world. Good thing we elected that bozo, or the US might be a country to actually look up to..."

Atlanta Hawks Owner Sells Over Perceived Racial Comments

(This one really ticks me off because people overreact over perceptions...)

It recently came to light that NBA Atlanta Hawks majority owner is voluntarily selling his stake in the franchise due to an email that he wrote more than two years ago in which he was attempting to discuss with other team owners how to increase game attendance and team revenues, while overcoming the racial divide that exists in the Atlanta market.

To quote, "In July, Levenson self-reported an email he wrote to the team's co-owners and general manager Danny Ferry in August 2012 that he called "inappropriate and offensive." The league commenced an independent investigation after being made aware of the comments.
Levenson writes in a statement that the racially offensive comments came as he pondered ways to bridge Atlanta's racial sports divide and increase fan attendance at Hawks' games.
"In trying to address those issues, I wrote an e-mail two years ago that was inappropriate and offensive," he said. "I trivialized our fans by making clichéd assumptions about their interests (i.e. hip hop vs. country, white vs. black cheerleaders, etc.) and by stereotyping their perceptions of one another (i.e. that white fans might be afraid of our black fans). By focusing on race, I also sent the unintentional and hurtful message that our white fans are more valuable than our black fans."
"If you're angry about what I wrote, you should be," Levenson continued in the statement. "I'm angry at myself, too. It was inflammatory nonsense. We all may have subtle biases and preconceptions when it comes to race, but my role as a leader is to challenge them, not to validate or accommodate those who might hold them."
 I immediately wrote the following response:

"No one else is saying this, so I will...

So this guy, in addressing ways to increase revenues, and looking for ways to diversify game attendance amongst the various socio-economic groups, iterates things that are true, but which people don’t want to hear; so now he has to sell his interest in his team? Why…Because people are offended?

I’ve spent considerable time in Atlanta, and there IS a huge divide between whites and blacks, open mistrust between the poor and the wealthy, and definite perception issues that may or may not be based in fact and everyday living.
Levenson voices real and tangible issues that exist in the area, and now he’s a bad guy? If he was black, this would be a non-issue altogether. But because he’s white, then the email is viewed as racist. What a load of poo. Truth is truth—even when it is inconvenient to hear, or even acknowledge.

This man should not have to sell his interest in the team. People need to accept the truth and work towards eliminating such perceptions and mistrust. They need to stop being so sensitive to this discussion and instead, put their energies towards resolving these issues to mutual agreement and understanding. Only then can this entire discussion be put to rest.

In the meantime, folks just need to grow a pair and engage in meaningful discussion, rather than feigning offense at the least of racial references, whether warranted or not."

The comments Lenvenson made do not seem to be hateful towards anyone; rather, he is pointing out the issues that are real, and which must be overcome. His words were not even close to the Donald Sterling diatribe which was overflowing with disgust and hate towards anyone of African descent. (If you'll remember, Sterling is the now former, and infamous owner of the LA Clippers)

 These comments only spoke truth; and because people these days are complete wimps, they scream racism and demand satisfaction, or there will be hell to pay. What a joke!

This one smacks of the hypocritical double standards put forth by those who claim to want equality between the blacks and whites, but whom in reality, seek only to promote continued racial tensions in order to line their own pockets at the expense of any real movement towards true equality. After all, racism is big business to the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and their ilk. Why bridge the racial divide when there is money to be made from the poor folks these race baiters claim to care about?

Levenson should hold onto his majority stake in the Atlanta Hawks, and continue to look for ways to truly bring in the diverse fan base that exists in that market. After all, isn't that the ultimate goal of the equality movement...Bringing people together and eliminate the mistrust and age old perceptions that only seek to divide us?

Airline Rage over Seat Space

There has recently been a spate of air rage incidents on commercial airliners over the issue of personal space. These have all involved passengers easing their seats back into a semi-reclined position. However, doing so is increasingly impinging on the space of the passengers behind you. Why? Because air carriers are demanding putting more passengers within the same space, and are accomplishing this by reducing seat width (now a mere 16 inches), leg room (now just 20 inches from seat back to seat back), reducing restroom size (as if that's possible!) and decreasing the average width of the aisles.

In short, the airlines are greedy, and any way they can increase profit, they gladly do; in spite of growing discontent amongst rank and file passengers. As paying customers, the airlines demand more money, and give less and less in return. While airfares are currently midline, all the carriers are adding baggage fees, port fees, preferred seating fees, charging for pillows and blankets, eliminating food service on long flights (aside from the 1st Class passengers, of course), even charging you to have the audacity of using a check-in person at the airport (!) and pretty much anything else the pencil heads can think of to gouge the customers even more.

It's really nothing more than GREED. Last year the airlines had a collective net profit of some $7.00B dollars; largely due to the plethora of fees they impose on their cash strapped customers. So, with those kinds of profits, why exactly are passengers being treated like cattle on their way to slaughter?
It's disgusting what is happening in the name of 'profit.' You would think with $7B income that air carriers would give passengers a few perks back. Instead of looking at customers as bodies that fill seats, how about giving them some respect...and space?

That will never happen because airlines, like the oil companies, have become addicted to record profits and will fight their customers tooth and nail to keep those dollars rolling in; while passengers have less and less space to sit in, and are denied the most basic of services, as well as respect.

The only way this will change is if the paying public start writing airlines and demand a change towards customer service and comfort. If that doesn't work, start driving instead and deny the airlines your travel budget. After all, money speaks louder than words; and if enough people stop flying, I guarantee you that the airlines will listen.

From The Wall Builders: A Shield of Righteousness

This week represents the 75th Anniversary of the start of World War II. I received the following from The Wall Builders that contains yet another significant piece of forgotten history--or, purposely omitted by revisionists--that this country rallied around at the behest of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The article...

A Shield of Righteousness Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness. (Ephesians 6:14)   This week, (September 1) marks the 75th anniversary of the official beginning of WWII. On September 3, 1939, President Roosevelt addressed the nation with one of his famous "Fireside Chats" stating his resolve to remain a neutral nation in the war, which culminated in an American Proclamation of Neutrality declared on September 5th. However, all of that changed with the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. In his famous "date which will live in infamy" message to Congress requesting that the United States officially declare war on Japan, President Roosevelt stated, "With confidence in our armed forces -- with the unbounding determination of our people -- we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God." This confidence in God and our military (along with his concern for individual American soldiers) was later evident in what is now known as The Heart-Shield Bible. These Bibles (used during World War II) were designed to fit securely into the chest pocket of a soldier’s uniform. The metal plates were securely attached to the front cover of the Bible to stop a bullet from reaching the soldier's heart (which they did on several occasions). In our library at WallBuilders we have several of these World War II Bibles. In the back is a section of psalms and hymns, including “My Country ‘Tis of Thee,”  “America the Beautiful,” and “The Star Spangled Banner.”  In the front, there is a note to the soldiers directly from President Franklin D. Roosevelt.   "As Commander-in-Chief I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the armed forces of the United States. Throughout the centuries men of many faiths and diverse origins have found in the Sacred Book words of wisdom, counsel and inspiration. It is a foundation of strength and now, as always, an aid in attaining the highest aspirations of the human soul." Well before America joined World War II, on the 400th anniversary of the English Bible in 1935, President Roosevelt reminded the nation of the Bible's importance in America's formation and continuance:     "We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a Nation without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic. . . . Where we have been truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity; where it has been to us as the words of a book that is sealed, we have faltered in our way, lost our range finders, and found our progress checked. It is well that we observe this anniversary of the first publishing of our English Bible. The time is propitious to place a fresh emphasis upon its place and worth in the economy of our life as a people." Many other presidents encouraged Americans to read the Bible -- including President John Quincy Adams. Interestingly, before becoming president and while serving as a diplomat to Russia under President James Madison, Adams wrote his ten-year-old son nine letters on the importance of reading the Bible, how to read through the Bible once a year, and how to get the most application form what he read. Immediately after Adams' death in 1847, these letters were published as a book to make his wise counsel on the Bible available to all Americans. Called John Quincy Adams Letters to His Son, on the Bible and Its Teachings, WallBuilders recently reprinted this work in ebook format. Visit our website to get your copy and enjoy the remarkable spiritual insight of this great President of the United States.       The people who revise our history and seek to eliminate religion from our past, continue to ignore the very precepts that made The United States of America the great and shining example that it was. Instead, they tell us that religion is bad, and played no role in the creation of this country, and that anyone supporting religion is ignorant or uneducated. Never be afraid to stand up and voice your opinion on the matter. The less we say, the more the real history of this country is white washed from  religion--and its key role in our history-- to secularist interpretations that remove any references to Christianity and its influence over Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, Congress and everyday Americans.

Charles Thompson, Founding Father

The following is from The Wall Builders, and it highlights Founding Father Charles Thompson....

Charles Thomson 1729-1824 August 16th marks the 190th anniversary of the death of Charles Thomson. Charles Thomson, Secretary of the Continental Congress and a strong Christian, was one of only two people who signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4th (John Hancock was the other; the rest signed weeks later).     Thomson is also responsible for the Great Seal of the United States, which he prepared -- and Congress approved -- in 1782.     Thomson served fifteen years in the Continental Congress, and his political career came to a close when he notified George Washington that he had been unanimously selected the President of the United States. But Thomson was not only a great patriot and supporter of the American cause, he was also a great supporter of the Word of God. In fact, his name is associated with some of America's greatest Biblical works. For example, his name, as Secretary of Congress, is found in the introduction to the Aitken Bible, also known as "The Bible of the Revolution," which was the first Bible printed in English in America. That Bible was printed by Robert Aitken, the official printer of the Continental Congress (Aitken described that Bible as "a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools"), and was reviewed and approved by a committee of the Continental Congress, with an official congressional endorsement published in the front of that Bible. (All of the original books pictured below that are associated with Charles Thomson are from our library at WallBuilders.)   Thomson was also responsible for the first American translation of the Greek Septuagint (the full Greek Bible) into English in 1808 – a task that consumed nearly two decades of his life.  Called Thomson’s Bible, it is a four volume-set that is considered one of the most scholarly of American Bible translations, and that translation is still available today.     Thomson also had an 8 volume set  in which every other page was blank, thus allowing scholars a place to write notes on Scriptures as they studied them. In 1815, Thomson published his famous Synopsis of the Four Evangelists, in which he took all the passages from the four Gospels and arranged them chronologically, thus producing something like one super long Gospel, with all Jesus’ words and acts arranged sequentially. Today, we call such a work a synoptic Gospel.                                                                                    Sadly today, Charles Thomson has become a forgotten Founding Father, but his contributions, both politically and spiritually, permanently shaped the course of America and blessed American life.   To learn more about Charles Thomson or the influence the Bible had on America's founding, be sure to check out these great products from WallBuilders:               *To see the footnoted version, visit our website.

B&M Restaurant Owners Object to Food Trucks

An article in the 02 July 2014 Provo Daily Herald highlights the Provo City Council's deliberations on the use and business of independently operated Food Trucks in the downtown area. Many local brick and mortar restaurant owners are objecting to the food trucks parking in the downtown area, and are, essentially, afraid of the competition [for consumer dollars] that these food trucks bring. The B&M owners are actually asking the city council to ban food trucks from the business district of Provo, thereby stifling completion for consumer dollars.

Here's my reply:
"As much as the local restaurant owners don't like the hits to their business, the consumers have the real say in this because they will always go to what sounds good at any given time. Restaurants, by nature of the business, go through many waves of customer use from day to day. Like any competition, if business opens close to a competitor, the original store will take a hit, with consumers sampling the new product. Over time, the original store will see its business rebound, while the new business will lose some customers, and back and forth. It's called Free Market, and as much as competition to a store sucks, it is the very nature any business.

If the owners of the brick and mortar restaurants are taking big, sustained losses, then maybe they need to step up their game and produce better offerings, or diversify their menus in order to compete. After all, how many consumers even want to eat the same foods day after day? Not many.

Consumers WANT variety in their meals. These owners need to stop telling other business owners that they can't make any money simply because the competition for consumer dollars to too challenging for the B&M owners to overcome. Stop whining and step up to the challenge; or, get out of the game."

In the days since my reply was made, not one single comment referred to my opinion on the matter. No one.
I get the concerns of these business owners; but edging out your completion through political maneuvering is just wrong...ethically and morally. I hope the Provo City Council simply stand their ground and tells the B&M owners, "No." Free Market practices will dictate the success or failure of these restaurants. Stifling any competition through legislation simply isn't the way to conduct business.

Three Billionaires Opine The Immigration Issue

The following Op-Ed piece appeared in the 11 July 2014 NY Times.

Break the Immigration Impasse

Sheldon Adelson, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates on Immigration Reform

By SHELDON G. ADELSON, WARREN E. BUFFETT and BILL GATESJULY 10, 2014

 

"AMERICAN citizens are paying 535 people to take care of the legislative needs of the country. We are getting shortchanged. Here’s an example: On June 10, an incumbent congressman in Virginia lost a primary election in which his opponent garnered only 36,105 votes. Immediately, many Washington legislators threw up their hands and declared that this one event would produce paralysis in the United States Congress for at least five months. In particular, they are telling us that immigration reform — long overdue — is now hopeless.

Americans deserve better than this.

\

The three of us vary in our politics and would differ also in our preferences about the details of an immigration reform bill. But we could without doubt come together to draft a bill acceptable to each of us. We hope that fact holds a lesson: You don’t have to agree on everything in order to cooperate on matters about which you are reasonably close to agreement. It’s time that this brand of thinking finds its way to Washington.

 

Most Americans believe that our country has a clear and present interest in enacting immigration legislation that is both humane to immigrants living here and a contribution to the well-being of our citizens. Reaching these goals is possible. Our present policy, however, fails badly on both counts.

We believe it borders on insanity to train intelligent and motivated people in our universities — often subsidizing their education — and then to deport them when they graduate. Many of these people, of course, want to return to their home country — and that’s fine. But for those who wish to stay and work in computer science or technology, fields badly in need of their services, let’s roll out the welcome mat.

 

A “talented graduate” reform was included in a bill that the Senate approved last year by a 68-to-32 vote. It would remove the worldwide cap on the number of visas that could be awarded to legal immigrants who had earned a graduate degree in science, technology, engineering or mathematics from an accredited institution of higher education in the United States, provided they had an offer of employment. The bill also included a sensible plan that would have allowed illegal residents to obtain citizenship, though only after they had earned the right to do so.

 

Americans are a forgiving and generous people, and who among us is not happy that their forebears — whatever their motivation or means of entry — made it to our soil?

For the future, the United States should take all steps to ensure that every prospective immigrant follows all rules and that people breaking these rules, including any facilitators, are severely punished. No one wants a replay of the present mess.

 

We also believe that America’s self-interest should be reflected in our immigration policy. For example, the EB-5 “immigrant investor program,” created by Congress in 1990, was intended to allow a limited number of foreigners with financial resources or unique abilities to move to our country, bringing with them substantial and enduring purchasing power. Reports of fraud have surfaced with this program, and we believe it should be reformed to prevent abuse but also expanded to become more effective. People willing to invest in America and create jobs deserve the opportunity to do so. 

 

Their citizenship could be provisional — dependent, for example, on their making investments of a certain size in new businesses or homes. Expanded investments of that kind would help us jolt the demand side of our economy. These immigrants would impose minimal social costs on the United States, compared with the resources they would contribute. New citizens like these would make hefty deposits in our economy, not withdrawals.

 

Whatever the precise provisions of a law, it’s time for the House to draft and pass a bill that reflects both our country’s humanity and its self-interest. Differences with the Senate should be hammered out by members of a conference committee, committed to a deal.

 

A Congress that does nothing about these problems is extending an irrational policy by default; that is, if lawmakers don’t act to change it, it stays the way it is, irrational. The current stalemate — in which greater pride is attached to thwarting the opposition than to advancing the nation’s interests — is depressing to most Americans and virtually all of its business managers. The impasse certainly depresses the three of us.

 

Signs of a more productive attitude in Washington — which passage of a well-designed immigration bill would provide — might well lift spirits and thereby stimulate the economy. It’s time for 535 of America’s citizens to remember what they owe to the 318 million who employ them."

 

 

(Sheldon G. Adelson is the chairman and chief executive of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation. Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway. Bill Gates, former chairman and chief executive of Microsoft, is co-chairman of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.)