The American revolution came in the form of collective heroism

Several years ago we witnessed a strange and unexpected event between a dog and a cat. A fairly good sized German Shepherd spotted a much smaller, black house cat and broke into a dead run after the cat. The cat, startled by the dog and now instantly charged with adrenalin, struck off down the street as fast as he could go, in a black blur.

Now a dog chasing a cat is hardly news, but it was what the cat did that drastically altered the outcome of the chase. About a few seconds into the chase, the cat, without regard to the consequences, suddenly turned 180 degrees and planted five sharp claws on the dogs nose as the dog, trying to stop, ran into the cat. The dog turned tail and bolted up the street, yelping in pain, as he fled into the distance. The cat simply decided it had had enough and “esplained” it to the dog (bully), by punctuating his message of displeasure with the weapons with which nature had armed him.

The episode brought to mind our current dilemma. The dog (bully government) has been “chasing” the cat (the American people) for the last 80 to 100 years and the “cat” has yet to turn 180 degrees and punctuate its message of displeasure on the “dog”, with the weapons with which nature and our constitution have armed us.

It took over 150 years (1620 to 1775) for the colonials to grow tired of the British government and turn on them, no matter what the consequences. Their brave, courageous and some say fool hardy actions, gave birth to a unique kind of freedom, at great cost. The British were many, heavily armed, outfitted and organized. The colonials were poorly armed and disorganized ..... in reality an unruly, unregulated and untrained militia.

Throughout the battles and skirmishes during the revolution, many feared that victory would never be theirs to celebrate and defeat would come with even greater injustices, intimidation and retribution on the colonials, at the hands of the King’s men. Some say providence turned the tide. Other’s say the French, who hated the British and helped the Americans because of it, snatched the King’s victory right out from under his Generals’ noses. Perhaps both are right.

But like the dog chasing the cat, the difference that characterized the American Revolution was what the Americans did. They had finally had enough and “esplained” it to the British (bully), by punctuating their message of displeasure with the weapons with which nature, bravery and courage had armed them.

We may rightfully ask, what, in the instance of the cat being chased by the dog, caused the cat to turn on the dog, even though the dog was five times the size of the cat? And along the same lines, what was the catalyst that caused the colonials to turn on the British, even though the colonials were much smaller in number, armament and training? We believe that the catalyst is of the same substance from which heroes are born on the battlefield and it finds its roots in two human emotions, anger and self preservation.

Anger and self preservation are the motivation for a corresponding response to any threat.
It was the cat, without regard to his own life, who turned on the dog. It was the colonials, without regard to their safety and security, who turned on the British because they stepped outside of the main stream, the rational and the accepted to overcome their fear. They resisted abusive authority, no matter what the cost. The cat turning on the dog was a form of individual heroism. The American revolution came in the form of collective heroism.

Not a single living, two or four-legged organism (don’t know about micro organisms, plants and trees) on Earth likes to be pushed around, chased or bullied. They, in fact, have an all-consuming desire to be free. In most cases, the natural reaction to bullying is anger and results in either fight or flight, depending on how nature has armed them.

Our situation in America is different, however. Because of the undaunted bravery of the colonials and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, we do not have to resort to violence to “esplain” it to the bully. We need only use the tools with which nature has armed us, our intellect, high morals and values, along with the foundation of liberty embedded in our Constitution and we will reverse the destructive path we are currently taking into abject socialism and ultimately, enslavement.

Today, the American people are still capable of collective heroism and the challenge to abusive authority, just as they were during the birth of our freedom some 233 years ago. We see the growing signs of that emerging heroism almost every day now. That those in government are becoming aware of this rising tide, is evident by their irrational panic to pass more controlling legislation before all Hell breaks loose.

Let us emphasize that there is no other country like America and there are no people like the American people, anywhere on earth. Freedom is burned into their souls and as the cat who turned on the dog, the brave ones, the collective American heroes, will not let freedom die, no matter what it takes to preserve it.

So we say to those who oppose individual liberty, the gift from our creator, we are right and you are wrong, because freedom is right and slavery is wrong. We also say to those who work to tear down America’s liberty, sovereignty and its moral and ethical values, let the games begin. In the end, we have no doubt that we shall prevail, just like we prevailed on the day that freedom was born when “..... a shot was fired, a shot heard ‘round the world”.

Stand steady and strong. Tyranny and corruption will be challenged on all fronts. The threshold for a peaceful American revolution is at hand.

I hope,and pray it will be so.

A friend of mine recently forwarded me a question a friend of his had posed:

"If/when our Federal Government comes to pilfer, pillage, plunder our property and destroy our lives, what good can a handgun do against an army with advanced weaponry, tanks, missiles, planes, or whatever else they might have at their disposal to achieve their nefarious goals? (I'm not being facetious: I accept the possibility that what happened in Germany, or similar, could happen here; I'm just not sure that the potential good from an armed citizenry in such a situation outweighs the day-to-day problems caused by masses of idiots who own guns.)"

If I may, I'd like to try to answer that question. I certainly do not think the writer facetious for asking it. The subject is a serious one that I have given much research and considerable thought to. I believe that upon the answer to this question depends the future of our Constitutional republic, our liberty and perhaps our lives. My friend Aaron Zelman, one of the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership told me once:

"If every Jewish and anti-Nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT (emphasis supplied, MV), Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Wiemar Republic."

Note well that phrase: "and the will to use it," for the simply-stated question, "What good can a handgun do against an army?", is in fact a complex one and must be answered at length and carefully. It is a military question. It is also a political question. But above all it is a moral question which strikes to the heart of what makes men free, and what makes them slaves. First, let's answer the military question.

Most military questions have both a strategic and a tactical component. Let's consider the tactical.

A friend of mine owns an instructive piece of history. It is a small, crude pistol, made out of sheet-metal stampings by the U.S. During World War II. While it fits in the palm of your hand and is a slowly-operated, single-shot arm, it's powerful .45 caliber projectile will kill a man with brutal efficiency. With a short, smooth-bore barrel it can reliably kill only at point blank ranges, so its use requires the will (brave or foolhardy) to get in close before firing. It is less a soldier's weapon than an assassin's tool. The U.S. Manufactured them by the million during the war, not for our own forces but rather to be air-dropped behind German lines to resistance units in occupied Europe. Crude and slow (the fired case had to be knocked out of the breech by means of a little wooden dowel, a fresh round procured from the storage area in the grip and then manually reloaded and cocked) and so wildly inaccurate it couldn't hit the broad side of a French barn at 50 meters, to the Resistance man or woman who had no firearm it still looked pretty darn good.

The theory and practice of it was this: First, you approach a German sentry with your little pistol hidden in your coat pocket and, with Academy-award sincerity, ask him for a light for your cigarette (or the time the train leaves for Paris, or if he wants to buy some non-army-issue food or a half- hour with your "sister"). When he smiles and casts a nervous glance down the street to see where his Sergeant is at, you blow his brains out with your first and only shot, then take his rifle and ammunition. Your next few minutes are occupied with "getting out of Dodge," for such critters generally go around in packs. After that (assuming you evade your late benefactor's friends) you keep the rifle and hand your little pistol to a fellow Resistance fighter so they can go get their own rifle.

Or maybe you then use your rifle to get a sub-machine gun from the Sergeant when he comes running. Perhaps you get very lucky and pickup a light machine gun, two boxes of ammunition and a haversack of hand grenades. With two of the grenades and the expenditure of a half-a-box of ammunition at a hasty roadblock the next night, you and your friends get a truck full of arms and ammunition. (Some of the cargo is sticky with "Botch" blood, but you don't mind terribly.)

Pretty soon you've got the best armed little marquis unit in your part of France, all from that cheap little pistol and the guts to use it. (One wonders if the current political elite's opposition to so-called "Saturday Night Specials" doesn't come from some adopted racial memory of previous failed tyrants. Even cheap little pistols are a threat to oppressive regimes.)

They called the pistol the "Liberator." Not a bad name, all in all.

Now let's consider the strategic aspect of the question, "What good can a handgun do against an army....?" We have seen that even a poor pistol can make a great deal of difference to the military career and postwar plans of one enemy soldier. That's tactical. But consider what a million pistols, or a hundred million pistols (which may approach the actual number of handguns in the U.S. today), can mean to the military planner who seeks to carry out operations against a populace so armed. Mention "Afghanistan" or "Chechnya" to a member of the current Russian military hierarchy and watch them shudder at the bloody memories. Then you begin to get the idea that modern munitions, air superiority and overwhelming, precision-guided violence still are not enough to make victory certain when the targets are not sitting Christmas- present fashion out in the middle of the desert.

"A billion here, a billion there, sooner or later it adds up to real money."
--Everett Dirksen

Consider that there are at least as many firearms-- handguns, rifles and shotguns-- as there are citizens of the United States. Consider that last year there were more than 14 million Americans who bought licenses to hunt deer in the country. 14 million-- that's a number greater than the largest five professional armies in the world combined. Consider also that those deer hunters are not only armed, but they own items of military utility-- everything from camouflage clothing to infrared "game finders", Global Positioning System devices and night vision scopes.

Consider also that quite a few of these hunters are military veterans. Just as moving around in the woods and stalking game are second nature, military operations are no mystery to them, especially those who were on the receiving end of guerrilla war in Southeast Asia. Indeed, such men, aging though they may be, may be more psychologically prepared for the exigencies of civil war (for this is what we are talking about) than their younger active-duty brother-soldiers whose only military experience involved neatly defined enemies and fronts in the Grand Campaign against Saddam. Not since 1861-1865 has the American military attempted to wage a war athwart its own logistical tail (nor indeed has it ever had to use modern conventional munitions on the Main Streets of its own hometowns and through its' relatives backyards, nor has it tested the obedience of soldiers who took a very different oath with orders to kill their "rebellious" neighbors, but that touches on the political aspect of the question).

But forget the psychological and political for a moment, and consider just the numbers. To paraphrase the Senator, "A million pistols here, a million rifles there, pretty soon you're talking serious firepower." No one, repeat, no one, will conquer America, from within or without, until its citizenry are disarmed. We remain, as a British officer had reason to complain at the start of our Revolution, "a people numerous and armed."

The Second Amendment is a political issue today only because of the military reality that underlies it. Politicians who fear the people seek to disarm them. People who fear their government's intentions refuse to be disarmed. The Founders understood this. So, too, does every tyrant who ever lived. Liberty-loving Americans forget it at their peril. Until they do, American gun owners in the aggregate represent a strategic military fact and an impediment to foreign tyranny. They also represent the greatest political challenge to home-grown would-be tyrants. If the people cannot be forcibly disarmed against their will, then they must be persuaded to give up their arms voluntarily. This is the siren song of "gun control," which is to say "government control of all guns," although few self-respecting gun-grabbers would be quite so bold as to phrase it so honestly.

Joseph Stalin, when informed after World War II that the Pope disapproved of Russian troops occupying Trieste, turned to his advisers and asked, "The Pope? The Pope? How many divisions does he have?" Dictators are unmoved by moral suasion. Fortunately, our Founders saw the wisdom of backing the First Amendment up with the Second. The "divisions" of the army of American constitutional liberty get into their cars and drive to work in this country every day to jobs that are hardly military in nature. Most of them are unmindful of the service they provide. Their arms depots may be found in innumerable closets, gun racks and gun safes. They have no appointed officers, nor will they need any until they are mobilized by events. Such guardians of our liberty perform this service merely by existing. And although they may be an ever-diminishing minority within their own country, as gun ownership is demonized and discouraged by the ruling elites, still they are as yet more than enough to perform their vital task. And if they are unaware of the impediment they present to their would-be rulers, their would-be rulers are painfully aware of these "divisions of liberty", as evidenced by their incessant calls for individual disarmament. They understand moral versus military force just as clearly as Stalin, but they would not be so indelicate as to quote him.

The Roman Republic failed because they could not successfully answer the question, "Who Shall Guard the Guards?" The Founders of this Republic answered that question with both the First and Second Amendments. Like Stalin, the Clintonists / Obamaists could care less what common folk say about them, but the concept of the armed citizenry as guarantors of their own liberties sets their teeth on edge and disturbs their statist sleep.

Governments, some great men once avowed, derive their legitimacy from "the consent of the governed." In the country that these men founded, it should not be required to remind anyone that the people do not obtain their natural, God-given liberties by "the consent of the Government." Yet in this century, our once great constitutional republic has been so profaned in the pursuit of power and social engineering by corrupt leaders as to be unrecognizable to the Founders. And in large measure we have ourselves to blame because at each crucial step along the way the usurpers of our liberties have obtained the consent of a majority of the governed to do what they have done, often in the name of "democracy"- - a political system rejected by the Founders. Another good friend of mine gave the best description of pure democracy I have ever heard. "Democracy," he concluded, "is two wolves and a sheep sitting down to vote on what to have for dinner." The rights of the sheep in this system are by no means guaranteed.

Now it is true that our present wolf-like, would-be rulers do not as yet seek to eat that sheep and its peaceable woolly cousins (We, the people). They are, however, most desirous that the sheep be shorn of taxes, and if possible and when necessary, be reminded of their rightful place in society as "good citizen sheep" whose safety from the big bad wolves outside their barn doors is only guaranteed by the omnipresence in the barn of the "good wolves" of the government. Indeed, they do not present themselves as wolves at all, but rather these lupines parade around in sheep's clothing, bleating insistently in falsetto about the welfare of the flock and the necessity to surrender liberty and property "for the children", er, ah, I mean "the lambs." In order to ensure future generations of compliant sheep, they are careful to educate the lambs in the way of "political correctness, " tutoring them in the totalitarian faiths that "it takes a barnyard to raise a lamb" and "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Every now and then, some tough old independent- minded ram refuses to be shorn and tries to remind the flock that they once decided affairs themselves according to the rule of law of their ancestors, and without the help of their "betters." When that happens, the fangs become apparent and the conspicuously unwilling are shunned, cowed, driven off or (occasionally) killed. But flashing teeth or not, the majority of the flock has learned over time not to resist the Lupine-Mandarin class which herds it. Their Founders, who were fiercely independent rams, would have long ago chased off such usurpers. Any present members of the flock who think like that are denounced as antediluvian or mentally deranged.

There are some of these dissidents the lupines would like to punish, but they dare not-- for their teeth are every bit as long as their "betters." Indeed, this is the reason the wolves haven't eaten any sheep in generations. To the wolves chagrin, this portion of the flock is armed and they outnumber the wolves by a considerable margin. For now the wolves are content are content to watch the numbers of these "armed sheep" diminish, as long teeth are no longer fashionable in polite society. (Indeed, they are considered by the literati to be an anachronism best forgotten and such sheep are dismissed by the Mandarins as "Tooth Nuts" or "Right Leg Fanatics".) When the numbers of armed sheep fall below a level that wolves can feel safe to do so, the eating will begin. The wolves are patient, and proceed by infinitesimal degrees like the slowly-boiling frog. It took them generations to lull the sheep into accepting them as rulers instead of elected representatives. If it takes another generation or two of sheep to complete the process, the wolves can wait. This is our "Animal Farm," without apology to George Orwell.

Even so, the truth is that one man with a pistol CAN defeat an army, given a righteous cause to fight for, enough determination to risk death for that cause, and enough brains, luck and friends to win the struggle. This is true in war but also in politics, and it is not necessary to be a Prussian militarist to see it. The dirty little secret of today's ruling elite as represented by the Clintonistas is that they want people of conscience and principle to be divided in as many ways as possible ("wedge issues" the consultants call them) so that they may be more easily manipulated. No issue of race, religion, class or economics is left unexploited. Lost in the din of jostling special interests are the few voices who point out that if we refuse to be divided from what truly unites us as a people, we cannot be defeated on the large issues of principle, faith, the constitutional republic and the rule of law. More importantly, woe and ridicule will be heaped upon anyone who points out that like the blustering Wizard of Oz, the federal tax and regulation machine is not as omniscient, omnipotent or fearsome as they would have us believe. Like the Wizard, they fan the scary flames higher and shout, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

For the truth is, they are frightened that we will find out how pitifully few they are compared to the mass of the citizenry they seek to frighten into compliance with their tax collections, property seizures and bureaucratic, unconstitutional power-shifting. I strongly recommend everyone see the new animated movie "A Bug's Life". Simple truths may often be found sheltering beneath unlikely overhangs, there protected by the pelting storm of lies that soak us everyday. "A Bug's Life", a children's' movie of all things, is just such a place.

The plot revolves around an ant hill on an unnamed island, where the ants placate predatory grasshoppers by offering them each year one-half of the food they gather (sounds a lot like the IRS, right?). Driven to desperation by the insatiable tax demands of the large, fearsome grasshoppers, one enterprising ant goes abroad seeking bug mercenaries who will return with him and defend the anthill when the grasshoppers return. (If this sounds a lot like an animated "Magnificent Seven", you're right.)

The grasshoppers (who roar about like some biker gang or perhaps the ATF in black helicopters, take your pick) are, at one point in the movie, lounging around in a bug cantina down in Mexico, living off the bounty of the land. The harvest seeds they eat are dispensed one at a time from an upturned bar bottle. Two grasshoppers suggest to their leader, a menacing fellow named "Hopper" (whose voice characterization by Kevin Spacey is suitably evil personified) , that they should forget about the poor ants on the island. Here, they say, we can live off the fat of the land, why worry about some upstart ants? Hopper turns on them instantly. "Would you like a seed?" he quietly asks one. "Sure," answers the skeptical grasshopper thug. "Would you like one?" Hopper asks the other. "Yeah," says he. Hopper manipulates the spigot on the bar bottle twice, and distributes the seeds to them.

"So, you want to know why we have to go back to the island, do you?" Hopper asks menacingly as the thugs munch on their seeds. "I'll show you why!" he shouts, removing the cap from the bottle entirely with one quick blow. The seeds, no longer restrained by the cap, respond to gravity and rush out all at once, inundating the two grasshoppers and crushing them. Hopper turns to his remaining fellow grasshoppers and shrieks, "That's why!"

I'm paraphrasing from memory here, for I've only seen the movie once. But Hopper then explains, "Don't you remember the upstart ant on that island? They outnumber us a hundred to one. How long do you think we'll last if they ever figure that out?"

"If the ants are not frightened of us," Hopper tells them,

"our game is finished. We're finished."

Of course it comes as no surprise that in the end the ants figure that out. Would that liberty-loving Americans were as smart as animated ants.

Courage to stand against tyranny, fortunately, is not only found on videotape.

Courage flowers from the heart, from the twin roots of deeply-held principle and faith in God. There are American heroes living today who have not yet performed the deeds of principled courage that future history books will record. They have not yet had to stand in the gap, to plug it with their own fragile bodies and lives against the evil that portends. Not yet have they been required to pledge "their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor." Yet they will have to. I believe with all my heart the lesson that history teaches: That each and every generation of Americans is given, along with the liberty and opportunity that is their heritage, the duty to defend America against the tyrannies of their day. Our father's father's fathers fought this same fight. Our mother's mother's mothers fought it as well. From the Revolution through the world wars, from the Cold War through to the Gulf, they fought to secure their liberty in conflicts great and small, within and without.

They stood faithful to the oath that our Founders gave us: To bear true faith and allegiance-- not to a man; not to the land; not to a political party, but to an idea. The idea is liberty, as codified in the Constitution of the United States. We swear, as did they, an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And throughout the years they paid in blood and treasure the terrible price of that oath. That was their day. This is ours. The clouds we can see on the horizon may be a simple rain or a vast hurricane, but there is a storm coming. Make no mistake.

Lincoln said that this nation cannot long exist half slave and half free. I say, if I may humbly paraphrase, that this nation cannot long exist one-third slave, one-third uncommitted, and one-third free. The slavery today is of the mind and soul not the body, but is slavery without a doubt that the Clintons and their toadies are pushing. It is slavery to worship our nominally-elected representatives as our rulers instead of requiring their trustworthiness as our servants. It is slavery of the mind and soul that demands that God-given rights that our Forefathers secured with their blood and sacrifice be traded for false security of a nanny-state which will tend to our "legitimate needs" as they are perceived by that government.

It is slavery to worship humanism as religion and slavery to deny life and liberty to unborn Americans. As people of faith in God, whatever our denomination, we are in bondage to a plantation system that steals our money; seizes our property; denies our ancient liberties; denies even our very history, supplanting it with sanitized and politicized "correctness" ; denies our children a real public education; denies them even the mention of God in school; denies, in fact, the very existence of God.

So finally we are faced with, we must return to, the moral component of the question: "What good can a handgun do against an army?" The answer is "Nothing," or "Everything. " The outcome depends upon the mind and heart and soul of the man or woman who holds it. One may also ask, "What good can a sling in the hands of a boy do against a marauding giant?" If your cause is just and righteous much can be done, nut only if you are willing to risk the consequences of failure and to bear the burdens of eternal vigilance. A new friend of mine gave me a plaque the other day. Upon it is written these words by Winston Churchill, a man who knew much about fighting tyranny:

"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

The Spartans at Thermopolae knew this. The fighting Jews of Masada knew this, when every man, woman and child died rather than submit to Roman tyranny. The Texans who died at the Alamo knew this. The frozen patriots of Valley Forge knew this. The "expendable men" of Bataan and Corregidor knew this. If there is one lesson of Hitlerism and the Holocaust, it is that free men, if they wish to remain free, must resist would-be tyrants at the first opportunity and at every opportunity. Remember that whether they the come as conquerors or elected officials, the men who secretly wish to be your murderers must first convince you that you must accept them as your masters. Free men and women must not wait until they are "selected", divided and herded into Warsaw Ghettos, there to finally fight desperately, almost without weapons, and die outnumbered. The tyrant must be met at the door when he appears. At your door, or mine, wherever he shows his bloody appetite. He must be met by the pistol which can defeat an army. He must be met at every door, for in truth we outnumber him and his henchmen. It matters not whether they call themselves Communists or Nazis or something else. It matters not what flag they fly, nor what uniform they wear. It matters not what excuses they give for stealing your liberty, your property or your life. "By their works ye shall know them."

The time is late. Those who once has trouble reading the hour on their watches have no trouble seeing by the glare of the fire at Waco. Few of us realized at the time that the Constitution was burning right along with the Davidians. Now we know better.

We have had the advantage of that horrible illumination for more than five years now-- five years in which the rule of law and the battered old parchment of our beloved Constitution have been smashed, shredded and besmirched by the Clintonistas. In this process they have been aided and abetted by the cowardly incompetence of the "opposition" Republican leadership, a fact made crystal clear by the Waco hearings. They have forgotten Daniel Webster's warning: "Miracles do not cluster. Hold on to the Constitution of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands-- what has happened once in six thousand years may never happen again. Hold on to your Constitution, for if the American Constitution shall fail there will be anarchy throughout the world."

Yet being able to see what has happened has not helped us reverse, or even slow, the process. The sad fact is that we may have to resign ourselves to the prospect of having to maintain our principles and our liberty in the face of becoming a disenfranchised minority within our own country.

The middle third of the populace, it seems, will continue to waffle in favor of the enemies of the Constitution until their comfort level with the economy is endangered. They've got theirs, Jack. The Republicans, who we thought could represent our interests and protect the Constitution and the rule of law, have been demonstrated to be political eunuchs. Alan Keyes was dead right when he characterized the last election as one between "the lawless Democrats and the gutless Republicans. " The spectacular political failures of our current leaders are unrivaled in our history unless you recall the unprincipled jockeying for position and tragi-comedy of misunderstanding and miscommunication which lead to our first Civil War.

And make no mistake, it is civil war which may be the most horrible corollary of the Law of Unintended Consequences as it applies to the Clintonistas and their destruction of the rule of law. Because such people have no cause for which they are willing to die (all morality being relativistic to them, and all principles compromisable) , they cannot fathom the motives or behavior of people who believe that there are some principles worth fighting and dying for. Out of such failures of understanding come wars. Particularly because although such elitists would not risk their own necks in a fight, they have no compunction about ordering others in their pay to fight for them. It is not the deaths of others, but their own deaths, that they fear. As a Christian, I cannot fear my own death, but rather I am commanded by my God to live in such a way as to make my death a homecoming. That this makes me incomprehensible and threatening to those who wish to be my masters is something I can do little about. I would suggest to them that they not poke their godless, tyrannical noses down my alley. As the coiled rattlesnake flag of the Revolution bluntly stated: "Don't Tread on Me!" Or, as our state motto here in Alabama says: "We Dare Defend Our Rights."

But can a handgun defeat an army? Yes. It remains to be seen whether the struggle of our generation against the tyrants of our day in the first decade of the 21st Century will bring a restoration of liberty and the rule of law or a dark and bloody descent into chaos and slavery.

If it is to be the former, I will meet you at the new Yorktown. If it is to be the latter, I will meet you at Masada. But I will not be a slave. And I know that whether we succeed or fail, if we should fall along the way our graves will one day be visited by other free Americans, thanking us that we did not forget that, with the help of Almighty God, in the hands of a free man a handgun CAN defeat a tyrant's army.

Mike Vanderboegh
P.O. Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
Mo10Cav@...
Copyright 1998.

NOTICE:

Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. We in this country have no recourse or protection. Everything we type may be used against us to detain us in a secret prison, where we will be held without right of habeas corpus or right to trial by
jury.

Kinda looks like where this Country is headed,don't it?

Dan

It would seem that one of Our new president's(?)financial advisors has a problem with discrimination.

Robert Reich,one of obambie's new advisors seems to think that any new construction jobs created

by the new administration should be given to those who are not "White Males",and I am understandably

outraged.

Send this attachment around. This video shows Obama's  cabinet member Robert  Reich saying that construction jobs should not be given to white males.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opxuUj6vFa4

He is followed by Rangel,of NY,saying that the American Middle-class is powerless to

do anything about this,the boiling point is definitely coming.Here is My response to Mr."Reich"--(4th?)

Dear Sir:
I am extremely disappointed at Your obvious discrimination toward White Male
Construction Workers.How dare You sit on the floor of MY congress,in MY
Country,and say that new contruction jobs created by the current administration
should be selectively distributed,excluding White Males?
This Particular "White Male" has been a Mason for 28 years,and Unemployed for the
most of the last 11 months.I am a "Natural Born Citizen"of this Country,and am very
good at what I do,and wholly resent what You have suggested.
This amounts to nothing less than racism,and flies in the face of this Country's
equal-opportunity laws.I will not be told that I cannot survive in My Own Country
because some stuffed shirt in DC says I can't have a job.

You are Jewish,Mr.Reich,are You not?Then,You of all people should be aware of
the resentment caused by statements such as Yours.I will not accept any such discrimination
if I come across it,and hopefully no one else will,either.A policy such as this may lead
to the phrase-"Never Again"-taking on a whole new meaning.
And if Your Buddy,Rangel,seems to think that the middle class won't fight this,wait
until the so-called "middle-class" is suddenly deprived of work and can no longer
keep their houses,or feed their kids.Then what?

Remember,"Idle Hands are the Devil's Workshop"and most of Us are already sick
and tired of watching illegal immigrants STEAL Our jobs.I would submit to You,
Sir,that Your proposal is discriminatory at best,a declaration of War at worst.

SHAME ON YOU!!!

Respectfully,
Daniel A. Small
Palm Bay,FL

I have tried to track down an addy for Rangel,but He seems elusive,at least to Me,whose

computor skills are limited.

Dan

I can't believe this is happening right under Our very noses...

SENATE BILL S. 2433 THE GLOBAL POVERTY ACT

Having confronted these lefty loonies Myself,3 times now,I thought this was

funny as hell,Y'all gotta see this,if You've been there,You'll understand especially.

Here it is...

http://www.youtube.com/wa
tch?v=BYI44RaoObw

From the Good People at "The Patriot Post":

What the Palin probe really found

An Alaska state legislative investigator found in its final report of the so-called trooper scandal that Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power in trying to get State Trooper Michael Wooten fired. Democrat state senator and ardent Obama supporter Hollis French oversaw the investigation and insisted it be finished and released before Election Day. Predictably, the Leftmedia and the anti-Palin attack dogs (but we repeat ourselves) jumped on the abuse-of-power finding, but they do not wish to follow the facts of the story to its logical conclusion. Let’s take a look at what happened.

Wooten had a record of violent behavior, drinking alcohol on the job, illegal hunting, using a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson and threatening to kill a member of the Palin family. These were all valid reasons to seek Wooten’s removal from the force, and Palin apparently told Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan to fire him. Monegan refused and was in turn fired by Palin.

The report also recognizes that it was within Palin’s right as governor to fire Monegan, but the supposed problem that was raised by the report was that Monegan’s removal came in part because he would not fire Wooten, who was Palin’s sister’s ex-husband. The related history that Wooten shared with the Palin family is immaterial, or at least it would be in a non-election year. Look at the facts specifically. Wooten was a lousy officer and had no business keeping his job with the kind of behavior he displayed on numerous occasions. Monegan is responsible for the officers under his command; if he cannot, or for some reason will not, discipline them or remove them when necessary, then he is not doing his job and he should be removed. Where exactly does the abuse of power charge come from here? This report contains no recommendations for further action, so it holds little real value except as a campaign weapon for the Democrats.

This letter was sent to Me from the Gathering of Eagles,and was written By a Man with

GUTS,not some Alaskan pinko (of which there are few) and deserves to be heard:

From a USMC and former Air America pilot)

            - - - - - - - - -

            From an old Air America buddy in Alaska - actually

sent to someone else but Cc'ed to me.   

-----------------------------------------------------------------

----

            And from a Alaska man who is a very serious cynic

about all things political here is my take on Sarah.

            I met and spoke with Sarah Palin about two years ago

at our downtown Park Strip. It is a place for walking, carnivals,

political outdoor things and such. She was cooking hotdogs at a

fund raiser and introducing herself to the public as a Governor

hopeful.

            She came by and said the usual 'Hi, I'm Sarah Palin

and I am running for Governor'...and I expected her to keep on to

the next person but she asked me who I was and what I did in

Alaska and we ended up talking for 15 minutes about me, Air

America (she was all agog!) and my career in the Army and AAM.

She is a pilot (Super Cub) I'm told although all she told me

about that was that she loved flying.

            As I watched her over the next six months as she

successfully ran for Governor I was really impressed. I was

impressed greatly even before that after she resigned a good

position (Alaska Gas and Oil Regulatory Commission) because a

fellow Commission member (Chair of the Alaska Republican Party)

misused their office and position. He was using the FAX,

computers, printing room and all to promote the Republican

endeavors while in a State job. That is a huge no-no in any

government employment position.

             She resigned and made her point and within weeks

Randy Ruderich (the above bad guy) found his ass out on the

street and a subsequent investigation found him guilty and he was

fined $12,000. Small change actually but a giant point was made.

             Next she went after our most horrible Governor ever,

Governor Murkowski, and damned if she didn't beat him! All of us

here in Alaska, except the Democrats, are sick of our State's

corruption. That fact was shouted to the heavens after she was

elected with an overwhelming point spread.

            After she got into office she started after corrupt

legislators and with the FBI's help we've put four of them in

prison, indicted six more and the 'Corrupt Bastard's Club' as

they arrogantly called themselves (even had hats made with CBC on

the front!) suddenly found it no fun anymore. Club membership is

now in the toilet!!

            The current flap which has cost her a ten point loss

of popularity (she's still 82%!) was over firing a popular

Commissioner of Public Safety who is responsible for our Alaska

State Troopers. She fired him for no STATED reason which was her

prerogative as the Gov. He served entirely at her option. She and

her whole family had a bad, bad experience with a rogue Trooper

who was married to Sarah's sister. His name is Trooper Wooten.

This dimwit Trooper had threatened Sarah's father (death

threat!), threatened Sarah ('I'll get you too'), tasered his 12

year old stepson, drove drunk in his AST cruiser, got a pass by a

fellow Trooper who stopped him for erratic driving a second time

while in civvies and just a host of other things not yet released

to the public. He got away with it and got another pass by the

Commissioner's appointed AST Trooper Internal Affairs

investigator with a tiny slap on the wrist. Five days off without

pay to be exact!!

            This maverick Trooper is still on the payroll but

only just. The Union intervening saved his malcontent ass. He'll

yet get his I'm sure. Incredible heat is being heaped on the

Troopers. Public heat, not the Governors office.

             The Democrats had the audacity to appoint a

obviously biased investigator, Rep. 'Gunny' French (so called

because he lied about being in the USMC while running for the

Legislature) is a staunch liberal and under the orders of Senate

President Lyda Green who hates Sara. She hates Sarah because

after being elected Governor Sarah told the whole Legislature in

one of her first meetings with them that, quote; 'All of you here

need some Adult Supervision!!!'.  Sarah was seriously pissed and

not afraid of anyone there.That played wonderfully well with

Alaskan's after all of our corruption and after all of her

successful battles against a seriously entrenched corrupt

government here in Alaska. It pissed off the whole Legislature

though! They have stayed pissed but also afraid of her because of

her popularity.

            She reminds me personally of our Alaska wolverine

which will fight anything in it's path if it see's fit to do so.

No respect at all for size or position. Wife Cindy is in this

category too. Unfortunately.

            In closing I must tell you that she is the best, most

moral and most focused leader I've seen since President Reagan. I

feel, really strongly, that like Alaska the rest of our country

will love her within a few weeks. Put simply, she represents

middle America like NO leader we've ever had. I think McCain made

a totally brilliant move in choosing her. She's a maverick who is

probably tougher and more focused than McCain himself....and she

won't be a total 'Yes Man' or more appropriately, woman. McCain

will love her.

            In 2012 she will be President.

            My best to all of you in the hurricane belt. I hope

you are all OK. We just had another mini  Air America reunion

here in beautiful Soldotna, Alaska along the Kenai river. We'll

be doing this every year now I guess. Like our Flying Tiger pal's

before us there are not that many Air America guys left. I'm 71

myself this September 16. Where the hell did the years go so

fast?

            My best to you old buddy

            Semper Fi,

            George W. Murray

OK,so everyone tell Me,where does the MSM come off trashing Sarah Palin?

Someone told Me that at a trip to the grocery store today,She saw some 

''tabloid'' spewing some puke,too.I have yet to see the ''grocery store'' crap,

I usually go on mondays or tuesdays,but I see some pinko in the local 

paper crying about how Sarah has ''zero experience'',and I am sending this

letter in rebuttal.They probably won't publish it,but Ya can't say I

didn't try.I'm already sick of this crap,and demand equal time.

Think I'll get it?

Dan