Let the Murderous Taliban sit at the seat of the Afghany Government:

A lot of us have known for a while that Obama was weak, when it came to the military. What this news has revealed, is that we have an idiot for a Commander in Chief! If the Taliban is not the enemy, who have we been fighting for 8 years? Are we now just gonna hand the country back to them? This is insanity, especially considering how Iran is supporting these monsters?This is not a Flip Flop, this is a full on WAFFLE!
Straight from a WH official:
Though aides stress that the president’s final decision on any changes are still at least two weeks away, the emerging thinking suggests that he would be very unlikely to favor a large military increase of the kind being advocated by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal…
Obama’s developing strategy on the Taliban will “not tolerate their return to power,” the senior official said in an interview with The Associated Press. But the U.S. would fight only to keep the Taliban from retaking control of Afghanistan’s central government — something it is now far from being capable of — and from giving renewed sanctuary in Afghanistan to al-Qaida, the official said…
Bowing to the reality that the Taliban is too ingrained in Afghanistan’s culture to be entirely defeated, the administration is prepared, as it has been for some time, to accept some Taliban role in parts of Afghanistan, the official said. That could mean paving the way for Taliban members willing to denounce violence to participate in a central government — though there has been little receptiveness to this among the Taliban. It might even mean ceding some regions of the country to the Taliban…
Obama kept returning to one question for his advisers: Who is our adversary, the official said.
There it is again, Who is the Enemy???
Just where in the heck has he been, for the last ugh…….. Oh ya, 8 YEARS!!! And the part about denouncing violence, I guess he’s gonna have them swear on the Koran. Peacefull religion, my a$$. That doesn’t matter anyway, Mr. Change the World will take them at their word. Does any sane person, really believe that crap? He won’t listen to his Generals. Heck, he won’t even listen to his own speaches from a few months ago. Instead, he wants to back out and hand over parts of the country to these, Sweet, Misunderstood murderers! The one thing he has got right, is that the American people see this as HIS war now. So, to him, it has become all about His Legacy now!

So, rather than eat crow, by admitting he’s prepared to hand over huge swaths of the country to Murdering Thugs, or invest another 40,000 troops, he’s going to create a distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Does he honestly think we’re that stupid? Does he really think he can save face by claiming he’s focused on “the real enemy” now. Kind of like the campaign rhetoric, where “the good war” in Afghanistan is where our focus should be. Not “the bad war” in Iraq. How long is it gonna be before he decides that not everyone in Al Qaeda is the enemy — or, that Al Qaeda has been defeated. I think that is the reason for all those White House leaks to the press lately, telling us how weak Bin Laden and his minion’s have become.

Obama is just like most any other Democrat, “When the going gets tough, Tuck tail and run”! We’ve all heard it before, If you not in it, to win it, then bring our soldiers home.
In closing, I just want to say, the last 6 weeks have been some of the deadliest for our Brave men and women. I believe there is a reason for that. The TALIBAN watch TV too. They see the indecision in Obama, and because of that they have turned up the heat. They think we are going to tuck tail and run, so they are trying to kill as many of our soldiers as they can. Obama needs to make a decision, and he needs to make it quick.

If he, does indeed decide to pull out, I feel for the soldiers, and their families. Especially the ones that paid the “Ultimate Sacrafice.”
And as for the Afghanis, who will no doubt be subjected to genocide, as were the Vietnamese, when we left them high and dry in the early 70’s.

We should all pray that Obama makes the right decision. And if he doesn’t, we need to pray for those that feel the effects of that wrong decision.

May GOD Bless these United States of America!!!

Advertisements

912 Project March & Rally 2009
Fort Worth, TX

My wife and I, spent last week talking about the upcoming 912 event that took place, in Fort Worth, on 9/12/09. We have 2 elementary school age daughters that would be attending with us, so we took some time to explain to them what the event was for, what we were trying to accomplish, and most of all what they could learn from it.
We woke up Saturday morning to a steady rain. The first thing the girls wanted to know, were we still going. “Should we”, I asked? The oldest one said, “Ya we should, the soldiers have to fight in the rain”. I realised then that I had gotten them to understand that we would be doing our part, to fight for our country.
We showed up at the event at about 11:30 am, about 2 hours early. It was still raining, and would continue all day. The north side of the Convention Center, was already filling up. The crowd would grow to an estimated 20,000+ Patriots.
We really enjoyed a great day, with a bunch of great people. “The Judge” from Fox News was the keynote speaker, and he rocked the house. But, now I would like to get to my point: As we were leaving, my daughter saw a, let’s just say, youngster carrying a sign with the famous “Joker” pic of Obama. She made the comment, “Dad, that’s not nice.” I told her she was spot on, and that in fact we should be thanking the president for waking us up. We discussed it a little more, and I helped her to understand that there were always going to be “Bad Apples” in every crowd.
When we got home ,I just kept thinking about the “Thanking him for waking us up” statement I had made, and how true it was. I sat down and wrote this:
We thank you, Barack Hussein Obama, for your sincerity when you told us you wanted to fundamentally change our country. We weren’t sure how, but now we know!
We thank you, Barack Hussein Obama, for removing any and all responsibility we had for becoming good, law abiding citizens. We can now count on the govt. for giving us quality of life.
We thank you, Barack Hussein Obama, for apologizing to the rest of the world for all of our many sins. I am sure they will all like us now.
We thank you, Barack Hussein Obama, for making our children, and grandchildren responsible for the debt America now has. This is a good lesson in accepting responsibility.
We thank you, Barack Hussein Obama, for stepping up and helping the teachers teach our children, in the classroom.
It is obvious I could go on, there is so much we can thank him for, but I am most thankful for, Barack Hussein Obama, waking a “SLEEPING GIANT”!!!

GOD Bless America!

Have you ever wondered what it would actually require to be a modern-day Conservative? As I pondered this, I decided to list some things that came to mind.

#1. I MUST believe, with all my Heart, that being Pro-life is the Backbone of the Conservative platform. That includes the fact that LIFE begins at conception.

#2. I have to believe Ronald Wilson Reagan was the greatest President of all time. His economic policies set-up a long period of historical economic growth. His leadership was much needed in our country, at that time. His strength in Foriegn Policy put us in the position of being the World’s ONLY Super Power. We, as a country, needed his moral compass at that time in our history. Plus, let’s not forget the WALL coming down in Eastern Europe.

#3. My Christian values should always be “Front and Center” in my life. That includes helping other Christians, like the poor, elderly, disabled, etc. We, as Christians, need to continue to be the “Shining Light on a Hill” in our homes, communities, and our GREAT Country.

#4. I must continue to do my duty in helping to elect, good moral, Christian, men and women to lead this country in the way in which our Founding Fathers directed us. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence were good enough the first 200 years, they are good enough to guide us the next 200 years.

#5. I must remain vigilant in doing all I can to protect our country from enemies, inside and outside of our borders. That includes, supporting our men and women of the Armed Forces, Police, Fire Fighters, and all other First Responders. We continue to field the Greatest military in the world, because it is made up of the second GREATEST GENERATION EVER!

#6. I must continue to fight for FREE SPEECH, a FREE (not STATE RUN) Press, which includes conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Glenn Beck. There is a movement forming in our govt. to try to shutdown some of these venues. They must not succeed!

#7. As the saying goes, “If you want my gun, you are going to have to pry it from my cold dead hand”. Enough said!

#8. I will do everything I can to get prayer back into schools. This includes the passage of school vouchers, and anything else it will take to make our public schools better. Alot of our moral and cultural problems started when prayer and moral teachings were removed from public schools. We must do all we can to give our children the education ourselves and our parents got.

These are just a few of the principles I feel are necessary to be a true conservative. Our country is at a point in history, where it is going to take good strong conservatives to save our Republic. Will you join me in STANDING UP for what is moral and right. I would like to hear from you, in adding any new or old principles we should follow.
GOD Bless us all, and GOD Bless this Great Country!

Gun Toters of the USA

Posted: August 20, 2009 in Gun Rights, The Constitution

I’ve been amused by the recent media reaction to citizens openly carrying firearms in states that still respect our constitutional right to do so. The vast majority of media folks are flaming liberals, so it’s really no surprise. Still, it’s odd that anyone in America would recoil from the mere presence of guns. I am probably in the minority when it comes to my view of the Second Amendment because I see it much more broadly than the Supreme Court recently indicated in District of Columbia v. Heller, a decision handed down last summer. In that landmark case, the Court said:

“Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.”

That essentially settles the basic argument for now. There are, however, many other ancillary arguments that remain unsettled. The left in America continually seeks to limit gun rights whatever the Supreme Court rules. As with the rest of our Constitution, we need to return to original intent to insure the freedoms inherent in our republic.

I am an unrepentant believer in the open carry of firearms. Any citizen who has not been convicted of a violent felony and is mentally stable should have the right to openly carry a weapon without permission from local law enforcement. The Second Amendment does not mandate prior permission from the government. Varying state laws in some cases severely restrict that right. Other states have laws in place that effectively negate open carry without expressly doing so. We as American citizens have the right of self defense, and we should be able to exercise that right openly and without fear of harassment from police. The only reasonable restriction on open carry is banning them in establishments that serve alcohol or in government buildings, for obvious reasons. Many believe that schools and churches should also be included, but far too often we’ve seen citizens attacked in those places without recourse. Homicidal maniacs pick these places to launch their attacks because they know that no one will be armed. How many fewer people would have died if someone present had been armed and ready to end such an attack? An armed society would see far less crime, especially armed robberies and sexual assaults. Despite liberal beliefs to the contrary, guns do not cause crime and in fact in many cases would prevent it.

I don’t really like the concept of concealed carry permits. Concealed carry is nothing less than concealed registration. It is merely another way for the government to compile lists of gun owners, another idea that clearly violates our Constitution. This is a sneaky legal maneuver that makes open carry impractical. The Second Amendment does not contain the phrase “with licensing and registration”. Why should any citizen need the permission of the local sheriff to exercise a right guaranteed under the federal constitution? It strikes me as patently absurd and thoroughly unconstitutional. Concealed carry permits are registration in disguise and clearly not within the original intent of the Second Amendment.

Prior to the DC v. Heller ruling, the continual march towards restricting individual gun rights had been steadily progressing. Each year we see further efforts to eviscerate Second Amendment rights by imposing more and more restrictions. The groups and individuals that support these measures are simply not comfortable with a basic American right. Many of them do believe that guns cause crimes, which is like saying flies cause garbage or that spoons make you fat. A gun is merely a tool. It is the intent of the user that matters. I have owned firearms for my entire adult life. I have never had to brandish one, much less use it, and I hope I never do. Should the day come, however, when my life or the safety of my family is in jeopardy, I certainly will want a gun for defense. Placing Draconian restrictions on gun ownership only makes the outlaw more powerful. Law abiding citizens are guaranteed the right of self defense, and that certainly cannot be accomplished with a stick. Whatever controls are enacted, the criminals will not adhere to them. Those who follow them are placed at risk.

It was strange to hear the recent reaction from the media to recent occurrences where citizens legally carried firearms to public protests. One would have thought these individuals were firing rounds into the air or perhaps were armed with nuclear missiles. The liberals doing the reporting displayed their unfamiliarity with firearms especially when attempting to describe the weapons themselves. Apparently they have not been around guns and are extremely uncomfortable in their presence. To their way of thinking, an armed citizen simply must be up to no good and is dangerous. They see an implied threat in the exercising of a guaranteed right. The unfortunate part is that their reactions sensationalize the story and substantiate a wholly unnecessary attitude. It’s really quite silly and a bit cowardly to my eyes.

Individual gun ownership has been an essential freedom in America since its inception. Our Founders saw it as important enough to be clearly included in the Bill of Rights. Those who are opposed are craven and would subject the citizenry to attack without defense. In closing, I’ll turn it over to three great Americans:

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Thomas Jefferson

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference . . .” – George Washington

“The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world… The first step – in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come – is to teach men to shoot!” – President Theodore Roosevelt’s last message to Congress.

The time has come for us, as Americans, to Stand-Up and be heard. Our Govt. is no longer representing us. We no longer have a Govt. Of the People, For the People, or By the People.

As far as I’m concerned, the Liberal Socialist Democrats and RINO’s in Congress no longer get to play the “Compassion Card.” Even with all the money these self-serving idiots take from hard-working American citizens, they will never get enough.

It. ain’t. their. money!!!

Why do we let ourselves to be Beat Down financially by these losers? They have come to see themselves as Kings deserving of power, and an unlimited amount of our money with which to buy and sell our national soul. This needs to come to a Screaching Halt.

It is our duty as citizens to throw out the corrupt members of government who create and fund entitlement programs with our money, claiming they are doing so in the name of compassion. Turning a once productive and independent people into Washington-dependent ATMs is not compassion.

I want my taxes cut. NOW. The government can do without from now on, not my family. The government can cut unnecessary agencies, departments, and programs. The government MUST be small again.

I have been trying to think of how we can send a very clear message to Washington that its oppression and thievery no longer are acceptable. How do we, the people who make this country work and who pay for it to do so, regain control of our government? There must be a way, short of all out revolution. We could have a massive tax revolt!

How do we get rid of members of both parties who have cemented themselves in the seat of power? With a MSM that turns a Blind-Eye to The Liberals while they undermine our values and keep us ignorant of what they are doing. I can’t believe this is even possible?

We must not allow anymore Looney Left policy to be enacted. Time after time, the results of their skewed and pandering legislation has caused great harm to our Country. Billion $ Bailouts… Repeal them! Oil drilling restrictions… Remove them! Climate Change Wacko’s… Shoot any who enter the Halls of Washington in an effort to inject junk science and environmental wakiness into the political debate.

We need to be doing the exact OPPOSITE of what they have been doing since the days of Roosevelt.

Socialism has never worked. Nor does our current system of Tax and Spend. Stop compensating victims of terrorist attacks, natural disasters, Cash for Clunkers, and self-perpetrated financial failure. Let people stand on their own. As Americans. We are not Bail-Out Babies, nor do we wish to be.

Stop BS’ing us. You are not being compassionate, you are being criminal. You are acting like tyrants.

It’s time for REAL Change!

The Nazi’s and Us

Posted: July 19, 2009 in Conservatism, Politics

Robert Proctor showed in “Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis” (1988), the Nazis were health fanatics who banned cigarette smoking, promoted vegetarianism and organic gardening, engaged in abortion and euthanasia, frowned on all capitalist excess, and even promoted animal rights. They were environmentalists who locked up land from development to promote paganism. The Nazi government introduced socialized medicine and government-mandated vacations at government spas, imposed handgun control, and expanded unemployment “insurance” and Social Security. The Nazis opposed the traditional calendar and wanted to replace it with one centered on race and nation rather than faith and family.

Does any of this look or sound familiar? WAKE UP People! Do you still Honestly Believe, “Oh, that won’t be us?” If so, your living in LA LA LAND. If you won’t Stand Up and Fight for your own Liberty and Freedom, then do it for your kids or your grandkids. If you don’t have children, then think of someone you Love, and do it for them. If you don’t Love anyone, then, well I guess just forget you read this, if you haven’t already.

As early as 1748 Samuel Adams, who should be considered the Father of the American revolution, started to write in a newspaper he jointly owned with a group of like-minded young men, about what was then an alarming tendency by the British Crown to ignore and violate the “charters” of the 13 colonies. Sam may have been a sickly man and an abject business failure, but he was the first to see and to publicly say that things would come to a head and that the only way to restore the charter rights was to become independent of the Crown.

These charters gave the colonies a great amount of local self-control and over time the Crown started to simply ignore the charters or it made arbitrary changes that did not favor the colonies at all. For the Crown, the colonies were a business investment in which the only thing that mattered was profit: the “Lords of Trade” wanted the colonies to produce only certain items, none manufactured, and to act as a “market” for their manufactured goods.

Sam saw right off the bat the logic of the situation. The Crown was pursuing policies that were not beneficial to the colonists, in service of the Lords of Trade, and would have to use more and more coercive powers to enforce such policies. This meant that either people would have to be made ignorant or made impotent, or both.

Sam believed, and started to say so, that there were only two paths: either the colonies would be turned into dominions of the Crown in which all former rights to self government and, of course, the right to be armed and the right of a free press, would be eliminated OR the colonies would have to separate from the Crown’s jurisdiction and replace the Crown’s rulership with a system in which the colonies each kept their charter rights, and enhanced them, and formed their own Union to make them safe from European powers.

Quite simply, Sam described a possibility of abject bondage or of “independency” and for the most part, Sam was ignored or even shunned for his beliefs. In everything he did, Sam was a failure and it has been said that while Sam was a fearless and dedicated worker in his cause, the cause of independence, he did not seek his own advantage or raise his station in life. He lost the money his father gave him, 1,000 pounds sterling, and the newspaper he and his friends owned was funded by them with only some support from advertisers and subscribers.

Sam was a tax collector, but because he refused to pursue people who could not pay their taxes with any vigor, he was notoriously in “arrears”, which means that, under the rules of the day, he was personally liable for the uncollected taxes (taxes were assigned, they were not based on income or wealth, on a per capita basis). Eventually the good people of Boston simply voted to forgive him of what he owed (2,000 pounds sterling), but this was after what had to have been many years of carrying a huge burden while focusing almost his every waking hour on arousing the people to a realization that there were only two possible paths to follow: bondage or independence.

Somehow, Sam was able to survive and lived, even in his last days, in a ramshackle house, which was all he could afford. Quite simply, Sam never gained materially from his work in sparking and laying the groundwork for the revolution and he suffered greatly in the years before it became more obvious that his seemingly “radical” ideas were, in fact, quite reasonable.

After the revolution Sam lived mostly in obscurity, he served in the Continental Congress and as Governor of Massachusetts, but his days of glory were from 1765 to around 1777: he had spent almost 20 years trying to arouse the people, from 1748 to 1756, he worked with James Otis, an unsung hero of only slightly less importance than Sam, from around 1765 to 1769 galvanizing the people around high ideals, from 1769 to 1775 he consolidated his position and single handedly organized the vital institutions that would lead the revolution, namely the Committees of Correspondence which led to the Continental Congress, from 1775 to 1777 he energized the revolution and worked tirelessly on countless issues within the Congress, and from 1777 to his death again receded into relative unimportance with a 4 years stint as governor dying in 1803 at the age of 82.

While James Otis has done so much to lay the legal and theoretical groundwork for the Revolution he was always an uncertain, hesitant revolutionary, he really believed that a new form of “Empire” was possible in which the Colonies would become equal partners and even, at one time, predicted that the real power on the Empire would shift across the Atlantic (which is what happened in general).

Otis was a defender of the rights of the people, what was called “the popular party”, that was a coalition of very conservative farmers in the countryside and of more or less radical merchants, mechanics, and laborers in the city of Boston. The basis of this collation (they did not have formal “parties” but mostly they met as what was called “The Caucus Club” or “The Sons of Liberty”), was a common faith in the principle of freedom and liberty, almost exclusively based on the writings of John Locke, the ideological founder of the United States, a desire to restore all lost rights and privileges under the charter of the colony, and expansion of those rights, and a liberalization of trade that would allow the colony to manufacture its own goods and eliminate all, or most, tariffs and duties on all trade goods.

This coalition was not limited to any racial group (although, blacks were, as a rule, not members if they were slaves, there were black members, such as Crispus Attacks), and it included men of all economic classes. The Town Meeting form of government was not, as some think today, limited to property owners: all men above 21 years of age were welcomed and came and many elections occurred right there in the Town Meeting while ALL could, and most did, participate and speak, even when meetings of 4,000 people occurred (although usually around 500 showed up).

This coalition did not seek to fix anything, beyond public works or public safety, but only sought to open up opportunities and give greater freedom of action to the people. The “mobs” did not range the streets demanding bread, they ranged the streets demanding “no taxation without representation” or a return to some right under the original charter.

There were wealthy people and “servants” in this coalition. Almost every man in the society of those days was at some time a servant, even the richest families sent their sons to become servants, “apprentices”, as a means of training them, teaching them a trade, teaching them to read and write, and securing them a start in life. A “graduated” apprentice could serve for 7 years and would often receive a new suit of cloths and tools to conduct their trade.

The path from servant to being wealthy was open to any white man, or any freed negro, and it was a belief that this path way being closed that caused rich and poor alike to form this coalition.

Of course “poor” is a relative term and as every contemporary observer attested in those days, the differences between rich and poor were simply not near as great as in Europe and the poor were not starving and unclothed. Servants were guaranteed food, shelter, education, what forms of health care existed, and protections against abuse that were enforced rigorously

Courts were even known to have fined masters for heaping profanities on servants and the general rule was that in a dispute between a master and servant the court had to favor the servant because they had less power. In some cases, the courts forced masters to pay large sums of money when it was found by the court that the master’s servants were not well fed and well clothed or had inadequate quarters.

This was no paradise, the technology of the day could produce little better than an average existence in which 12-16 hours work days with only Sundays off were simply necessary: any task was labor intensive. Doing the laundry was, until the 20th century, one of the most labor intensive jobs that existed and a “stay at home mom”, which was the rule for all homes with very few exceptions, was a very busy job requiring massive amounts of labor just to cook meals, clean the home, do the laundry, mend or sew clothes, and the like.

In general, older men tended to be capable of having some servants to handle these functions but the average lower middle class, or even “poor”, American has, thanks to microwaves, washers and driers, and other modern appliances, the equivalent of a staff of 4-5 servants.

Younger men were expected to become servants, apprentices, and the society of the day frowned in general on people who amassed a lot of wealth without sharing it generously with the poor, the church, and the community and could even be hauled onto court for greed and excess. The young men of the wealthy were expected to be “apprenticed”, which meant that almost everyone, with very few exceptions, experienced the same life of servitude as a “rite of passage”, generally beginning at around age 12 and lasting for around 7 years.

The people who were for the Crown almost ALL tended to be individuals who thought that an “American Nobility” should be created: these people would have brought feudalism in some form to America. Their opponents, the Whigs, saw any such move as dangerous to the freedom of all and they viewed these Tories as elitists and traitors to the charters of their colonies. Interestingly enough, the Tories were less socially conservative than the Whigs of the popular party: Tories gravitated towards the humanism of Voltaire and his kind whole clinging to an idea of “order” that was alien to the colonies and that the first migrants had fled from.

The Tories, who tended to be “socially liberal”, were willing to offer “help to the poor” in exchange for votes, but who were really all about protecting their position in society by effectively freezing out potential new competitors from the “lower classes” which they pitied but did not respect. When, for instance, James Otis gave a rousing oration to a “mob” of mechanics and laborers, who, incidentally, knew their Locke as well as an man, then Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson scorned him in the press, essentially attacking Otis for having such low class people as a base of support.

The popular party, Whigs, tended to have all kinds of people from all groups and classes and was socially conservative and wanted limited government and what we would call a free market (they used the term free trade, but they simply meant a free market, not free trade as we describe it today).

The Tories had managed to decrease the freedom of the people, weakening the original charters, by controlling the press, trying to control the universities, controlling the bureaucracy, and controlling the higher courts, particularly the Superior Court and the Admiralty Courts (which regulated trade). The Whigs created their own press, anyone with a printing press could print “penny papers” by hand and more and more did, and at times, when the courts and the governor in particular closed off legal redress, they did not hesitate to useb the mob to force the issue.

The Whigs countered the Tory dominance with their own newspapers, countless pamphlets and broadsides, Town Meetings, massive protests and even mob violence that targeted merchants that imported boycotted goods, officials who tried to enforce what they saw as illegal and unjust rules and regulations, and even officials who they saw as enemies of Liberty.

This situation may not have been universal in all 13 colonies, and tragically, it did not apply to slaves or to women to the same degree as it did to white men. What is certain is that the beliefs and the values of these people in Boston and Massachusetts were the driving force of the revolution: the writings of James Otis and Samuel Adams created an atmosphere for freedom that many in other colonies, men such as John Dickinson in Pennsylvania and Patrick Henry in Virginia, started to pick up and emulate in writings and speeches.

The ideas born in the crucible of life in Massachusetts, ideas born and supported by men of all groups, ideas based on a yearning for opportunity and freedom of action by individuals and small communities, particularly those governed by a Town Meeting that included ALL the men, permeated the colonies and were taken up by them vigorously. The logical extension of this ideal of freedom as ownership and opportunity and of rights designed to assure equal and fair access to freedom for all, was not realized in the that day, and indeed has never been fully realized and today is being assaulted by new Tories who are even more clever at hiding their elitism.

Today we take all this as a given, although when I say “we”, I am talking about a shrinking percentage of the population who actually understand that ownership and opportunity for individuals and local communities is the very definition of freedom, but in that day, going back to the period that ran from 1748 to around 1765 our hero, Samuel Adams, whom we affectionately call “Sam”, was pretty much alone in his keen understanding that there were only two paths.

Many people thought the existing system could be used to return the lost freedoms and to “right” things. Otis himself was convinced that if he could only have a fair hearing for his idea the Parliament in London would be convinced that this was all wrong and they would then see the light- Sam understand as few wanted to admit that Parliament and Crown were corrupt, that politicians there were only worried about their own interests and the interests of their rich friends who kept them in their cushy offices, and that in the end that system had to be run out of the colonies and the colonies would have to separate from that system or the colonies would totally lose all freedoms and feudalism in some form was coming to America.

In time a small minority of people gathered around Sam, men like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, and these men, younger than Sam and determined to follow the logic he had opened their minds to, became the “early adapters” and, eventually, the first leaders of the entire nation.

The first “converts” were initially doing thankless work but eventually they did become the great leaders of a revolution and of a new nation and today we count them as our “Founding Fathers”.

By 1775 a strong, well organized, minority of men, organized into these Committees of Correspondence, were in a position of being united, even though perhaps around 3% of the population totally agreed with them, and they had developed their own “shadow” government and society that was capable of making decisions, organizing people for action, and operating AS a government when the final crisis came on April 19, 1775. It was their ability to see into what was possible and probable and to understand what was impossible, largely thanks to our hero, Sam, that placed them in the perfect spot to take advantage of the situation and to respond to the crisis.

After 1776, it should be noted, Boston was not ever again threatened by the British and were it not for Sam’s good work in creating a vast network for rapid communication and gathering of people and resources the sudden move on Lexington and Concord on the night of April 18, 1775, would have occurred without anyone being aware and prepared and there would not have been any organized means to counter it let alone to let the rest of the colonies know what was happening and how the initial foray by the British had FAILED.

Sam was not a man who either sought or shrank from violence. He understood, as almost nobody seems to understand today, that you don’t change corrupt systems that are not controlled by the people by playing the game according to their rules: when the “rules” prevent you from succeeding, when they are inherently unfair and lopsided in favor of your opponents, you must either break those rules and force them to either change or become unenforceable or you must accept defeat.

Our revolution was not created and won by some committee, it was prepared for by one man who slowly gathered a core of die-hards and who was willing to use any issue and any means at his hands, legal or not, to undermine the corrupt system, to build an alternative system, and to render the enforcement of what were illegal acts by the charter of the colony impossible.

Back then, as today, everyone seemed to have their own club, group, or committee and nobody was able to see that there were only two paths and that changing the system, even to simply restore lost liberties, one had to view the “rules” in as “flexible” a manner as possible, even breaking those rules when nothing else was possible.

Sam did not care, he kept writing and working, here a little, there a little, and when people suddenly remembered that crazy guy who had been saying a crisis was coming he was suddenly surrounded by new friends, men who in the past may have called him a radical, an extremist, or whatever.

Now let me tell you, my name is not Sam, but it I sometimes think it should be. My name is Bill Collier and like Sam I published newspapers more as a way of reaching the People than anything else, and I am, financially speaking, an abject failure. I cannot resist, as much I have tried, devoting all my energy to the cause of freedom.

Just as Sam wanted to see the rights of the original charters restored I want to see the rights of our constitution restored, I want our states to regain the powers they would have had under those very original charters (it is ironic that our Federal Government gives less powers to the states than the British Crown gave to the colonies in the original charters), and I want to see local communities given the same powers they enjoyed under those original charters, including the right to have a Town Meeting form of government and the right to control MOST all of their local affairs without interference by the States and the Federal power.

What do we want to sell people on? We want to sell them on just what freedom is, ownership and opportunity and a strong protection of their rights, who the enemy is, all of the centrally controlled institutions, self reliance starting simply with groups of people agreeing to be mutually supportive and to assure one another of help in time of need, and asserting local autonomy and local economic self-reliance by promoting things like a local currency, local victory gardens, locally owned micro factories that use recycled goods, and etc.

We must sell as many people as possible, even if it is only 3% of the population, from all races, creeds, and socio-economic backgrounds, on supporting the information war, on freedom, on who the enemy is, on private self reliance, and on local autonomy.

Jeff Coker
jpccell@gmail.com