Tag Archives: rantus

What Good Can a Handgun Do Against an Army?

(Friends, Patriots, and others:  The following article by Mr. Mike Vanderboegh was written during the Clinton administration, so it is somewhat dated.  However, the point of the article more than retains its value, especially to true American Patriots, and especially in the light of our current national crisis.  I strongly suggest we all copy and paste this far and wide, in an effort to give reason and hope to those who see none.  Enjoy.)

By Mike Vanderboegh

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, once told me:

“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 Weimar 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 WorldWar 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 withbrutal 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 millions 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 woodendowel, 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 thebroad side of a French barn at 50 meters, to the Resistance man or womanwho 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 perhaps a half-hour with your “sister”). When he smiles and casts a nervous glance down the street to see where his Sergeant is, 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 submachine gun from the Sergeant when he comes running. Perhaps you get very lucky and pickup a lightmachine 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 fullof arms and ammunition. (Some of the cargo is sticky with “Boche” blood, but you don’t mind terribly.)  Pretty soon you’ve got the best armed little maquis 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 “SaturdayNight 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.

I forget the name of the Senator who observed, “You know, a million here and a million there, and pretty soon you’re talking about serious money.”  Consider that there are at least as many firearms–handguns, rifles andshotguns–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 militaryutility–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 awar 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 whoever lived. Liberty-loving Americans forget it at their peril. Until theydo, 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 such as Charles Schumer 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 advisors 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, gunracks and gunsafes. 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 thequestion, “Who Shall Guard the Guards?”  The Founders of this Republic answered that question with both the First and Second Amendments. Like Stalin, the Clintonistas 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 bestdescription of pure democracy I have ever heard. “Democracy,” he concluded, “is three 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 wooly cousins (We, the people). They are, however, most desirous that the sheep be shorn of taxes, and ifpossible 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 omni-presence 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 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 the wolves can feel safe to do so, the eating will begin. The wolves are patient, and proceed by infinitesimal degrees like the slowly-boilingfrog. It took them generations to lull the sheep into accepting them as rulers instead of elected representatives. If it takes another generationor 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 from the pelting storm of lies that soak us everyday. “A Bug’s Life”, a childrens’ 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 bountyof 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 KevinSpacey 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 isfinished. 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 fathers fought this same fight. Our mother’s mother’s mothers fought it as well. From the Revolution through the worldwars, 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 it 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 trust worthiness as our servants. It is slavery of the mind and soul that demands that God-given rights that ourForefathers secured with their blood and sacrifice be traded for the false security of a nanny-state which will tend to our “legitimate needs” as they are perceived by that government. It is slavery of a more traditional sort that extorts half of our incomes to pay, like slaves of old, for the privilege of serving and supporting our master’s regime.  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 yourcause is just and righteous much can be done, but 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 Thermopylae 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 theirworks ye shall know them.”

The time is late. Those who once had 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. AlanKeyes 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 away 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 theRevolution 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 isto 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 help of Almighty God, in the hands of a free man a handgun CAN defeat a tyrant’s army.


Article originally found here:  http://billstclair.com/blog/stories/handgun.html


A Brief Thought from Jay Anderson

Obama has elected himself supreme dictator. It is displayed in his every word, his every action. We the people of this once proud nation must find common ground and defeat this tyrant. I appeal to the American public: please set aside your party affiliation. Understand that what once made the democratic party a constructive opposing force to facilitate the balance of power exists no more, and take me at face value when I say I would just as quickly abandon my party affiliation in the event it became infiltrated by the same enemy as has been yours. I appeal to the American public to also, please, set aside your selfish personal interest and give for the greater good of all. Being a good citizen is as simple as accepting the parameters in which you live, regardless of situation or personal choice, and working for a better America, working to improve yourself. In the end you will have not only created a better tomorrow for your neighbor, you will have created a better tomorrow for your family and for yourself.


Jay Anderson

Ohio’s May 4th Primary: Decision Time for Buckeyes

Next Tuesday, May 4th, we all will have to make some important decisions. Decisions that will have a lasting effect on the future of our state, our counties, our towns, our children and our grandchildren. Political corruption must be removed from every office in our state, and on every level. We must turn out in unprecedented numbers and make our voices ring through the halls of government, and echo in the ears of those who have chosen to betray their oaths of office by ignoring the will of the people, and dismissing the Constitution they’re sworn to uphold and defend.

We deserve better than the status quo of corruption and Chicago-style politics which have existed in our state for far too long. Our children deserve the best Ohio that we, as voters, can leave to them. So we, as voters, must choose the candidates who offer the best possible future for Ohio! A future where existing businesses can grow, and new businesses will want to move here, bringing more and more jobs. A future where individual freedom and liberty are able to flourish, instead of being controlled. And it is with all of these things in mind that I have studied the potential candidates — who they’re endorsed by, what their platforms are, their records, reputations and where they stand on the issues. I encourage you to do the same for yourselves, ladies and gentlemen, because the choices we make now, will be the consequences that our children and grandchildren must face in the future.

I offer, for your consideration, my own choices of candidates for the future of Ohio:

Governor: This is my “Remember in November #1″, since there is no May Primary for this office. My choice in November will of course be the team of John Kasich and Mary Taylor, who will be running against incumbent Governor Ted Strickland (D) and Lt. Governor Yvette McGee Brown. In an April 6th article entitled Kasich Lays Out Plan for Ohio, found here, Mr. Kasich had this to say, “The situation in Ohio is bad; people know it and the guy who has been in charge hasn’t delivered,” Kasich said. “I’ve got a positive program that can help us to recover.”

“They spend all of their time attacking me and smearing me, and if you’re confident you’re going to win, you don’t spend time attacking your opponent,” Kasich said. “I’m treated more like the incumbent than the challenger, which is interesting.”

Kasich added that, since Strickland took office, Ohio has lost 426,000 jobs.

“We don’t even have a balanced budget, no program and no plan and it’s been a lot of government and higher taxes,” Kasich said. “I’m just the opposite on that. I’m for lower taxes and less government. I was chairman of the budget committee, I was involved and chief architect of the balanced budget, delivered a balanced budget, cut taxes, paid down debt and we had one of the most successful economic periods in modern history.

“I have a record of what I can do and that’s why I’m back in.”

Kasich said the way to bring small business back in Ohio is lowering taxes and reducing regulations on small business.

“Higher taxes will kill us,” Kasich said. “More regulations on small business will choke the life out of them. We know what needs to be done, it’s just a matter of getting it done.”

For getting it right, Mr. Kasich gets my vote.

U.S. Senate: This is my “Remember in November #2″, since there’s no May Primary for U.S. Senate, either. My choice here is Rob Portman, first because he has experience, having represented Ohio’s 2nd Congressional District as State Representative from 1993 to 2005, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during the George W. Bush administration, and as U. S. Trade Representative from May 2005 to May 2006, a post which carries the rank of Ambassador. In addition, according to the January 6th, 2010 Campaign Update on his website, “No one will outwork us. This U.S. Senate seat is too important to allow it to fall into the hands of one of the two Democrat candidates, both of whom are in lock-step with Washington’s anti-jobs policies and would be a rubber stamp for the Pelosi-Reid-Obama big spending agenda. Ohio’s workers and families can’t afford more of the same from Washington.”.

Again, for getting it right, Mr. Portman gets my vote.

Secretary of State: The Republicans battling it out in the Primary are John Husted (R-Huber Heights) and former Ashtabula County Auditor Sandra O’Brien (R). The winner will face Franklin County Clerk of Courts Maryellen O’Shaughnessy (D), and Charles Earle (Libertarian-Bowling Green) in November. My choice is Sandra O’Brien for several reasons: She is indeed a conservative, having fought for lower taxes and smaller government throughout her career. She is also pro-Second Amendment, being an NRA member, a concealed carry permit-holder, and receiving top ratings from the NRA. She is also pro-life, and a Tea Party/912 advocate. Her opponent, Mr. Husted, on the other hand, is much more RINO than Republican. You can find out more about Sandra O’Brien here.

State Attorney General: Former U.S. Senator Mike DeWine (D-Cedarville), Constitutional Party candidate Robert Owens of Delaware, Libertarian Marc Allan Feldman of Beachwood, and Hardin County attorney Steve Christopher (R), a member of the Tea Party movement, will battle to face incumbent Richard Cordray in November. Any serious Ohio conservative knows that DeWine is out of the question, which leaves only Robert Owens, Marc Allan Feldman, and Steve Christopher as choices. During my research I’ve omitted Mr. Feldman from my choices, as I realized upon visiting his website here, that the campaign is showing little effort, which leaves Mr. Owens and Mr. Christopher. Here’s where it gets interesting.

Based on accounts found in several places on the internet, namely here and here, one could surmise that some underhanded, Chicago-style politics are being played with the State Attorney General race — lending yet further proof that the office is in need of serious reform. Due to the current situation surrounding the issue of Mr. Christopher, and having discovered that he has donated large sums of money to the past campaigns of one Mike DeWine, I will be voting for Constitutional Party candidate, Robert Owens.

State Auditor: Representative Seth Morgan (R-Huber Heights), challenging Delaware County Prosecutor Dave Yost. My choice is Seth Morgan. From the Seth Morgan blog, “Seth Morgan, CPA has received the endorsements from the Brown, Cuyahoga, Greene, Lake, Madison, Miami, Montgomery, Scioto, Shelby, and Summit County Republican Parties for Auditor of State. Also, Seth Morgan is the only statewide candidate endorsed by the Ohio Tea Party PAC, which represents most of the Tea Party, 912, and Liberty groups organizations in Ohio.

“Seth is endorsed by the Citizens for Community Values Action PAC, Ohio Right to Life, Dayton Right to Life PAC, Family First PAC, many social conservatives and tea party leaders. Additionally, he has received the endorsement from the Associated Builders and Contractors Association, Buckeye Firearms Association, and COAST.”

Simple and to the point, these are my choices for next Tuesday. I hope each of you will do your own research into the candidates and the issues, and base your decisions on who you think will bring about the brightest possible future to Ohio.

See you all at the polls!

Copyright 2010, Robert Browning, all rights reserved.

Resetting the Course

The American Dream

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Declaration of Independence

It seems there are, in these troubling times, many misconceptions among the people living in the United States. Regardless of age, race, religion, occupation, gender, political ideology, or even “sexual orientation”, the numerous sects or communities in the United States each clamor for their rights. Gays and lesbians want their rights, the various ethnic groups want their rights, the environmentalists want their rights – even child molesters are demanding their particular idea of rights. And because there is an abundance of ideological overlap among these groups and organizations, the cacophony of pleas becomes a collective diatribe of indiscernible noise at times. But there is a reason for that.

Part of the reason is that each individual within each of these groups, desires their own idea of the American Dream. Each of them, at the core of their being, simply wants to live their lives free from ridicule, persecution and oppression – just as we all, as Americans, want to live. But it is precisely due to their misconceptions about rights that they are prevented from realizing their true desire to live their lives as they wish. Many of these people, I’m sure, would be surprised to learn just how much they have in common with the seemingly countless men, women and children who have fled persecution and oppression all over the world, to come to America to be free – for it is the core desire of all mankind to live freely.

So where is the misconception? It is illustrated in the very protests and demonstrations of these many groups and organizations. On nearly any given day any number of them protest for the government to grant them their rights – and therein lies the very root of their misconception. The government does not grant rights. If the government grants something to you, it is a privilege, and privileges can and will be taken away by those who grant them. World history is overflowing with examples of this. One need only to compare the political and societal practices of Russia, Red China, Argentina, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea to those of the United States, to see the glaring differences.

It is because the individuals which make up these numerous and varied organizations do not fully understand (or are not willing to admit) the origins of their rights, that they beg the government to grant them. This is a mistake, because it misses the crucial point of being an American citizen: That we all have the same rights, and that those rights can’t ever be taken away.

Many would say that our rights come from God. But this concept tends to cause, in many cases, the knee-jerk reaction of automatically rejecting the premise, for whatever reason. So let us simplify the concept in much the way the founders did, by simply stating that each of us attains these rights upon our very conception. They exist even before we are born, which is why the founders considered them to be inalienable – meaning they cannot ever be taken away.

Not only can our rights never be taken away by anyone, anywhere, at any time, for any reason, but they apply to every single one of us, regardless of age, race, religion, occupation, gender, political ideology, or even “sexual orientation”. In other words, there’s no need or reason to ask the government to grant us what we already possess. That is the wrong process of protest. What should, instead, be protested is the behavior of any government official, policy or legislation which hinders our ability to freely exercise our natural, inalienable rights – from the local police department, school board and town council, to the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress and the President of the United States.  For they are bound, by law, to protect the rights of citizens and the several states, as outlined in the Constitution for the United States, the Bill of Rights and their own Oaths of Office.

What is needed is not to ask the government for anything other than to stand by its sworn purpose: To protect all of our rights, at all times. For when we, as a truly equal, united people, succeed in bringing about this fundamental change back to the American Rule of Law, we will have succeeded in ensuring the freedom and equality of ourselves, our children, and our communities.

Copyright 2010, Robert Browning, all rights reserved.

“The Mad Helmsman”

The great vessel called “America” is now in the midst of a vast and powerful socio-political storm, being buffeted from every direction by the strong and hateful winds of the political left.  And it seems that nobody with any navigational knowledge is at the helm.  Clearly, the present, narcissistic, would-be helmsman not only lacks the critical experience necessary to keep our beloved vessel upright and clear of the rocks, but, like a madman, is purposefully steering her directly into the most destructive wind and waves he can find, all the while encircled by his defenders — the wielders of the swords of propaganda, demonization, arrogance, elitism and tyranny.  Together they keep at bay the attempts of the experienced navigators and the “old salt” sailors who readily recognize the dire situation and cry out in desperate pleas to bring the ship about, reset her course, and once again, weather such a storm.

Tensions between the two sides continue to escalate, dramatically.  In the chest of every man, woman and child on board the once noble and majestic “America”, hearts pound frantically as they glance back and forth between the jagged rocks in the closing distance, and the mad helmsman as he grins boastfully, daring anyone to challenge his presumed “authority”.

But all hope is not lost for “America”.  For, among the desperate pleas for a change of course, there are those who’ve wiped away their tears, and have begun to think, to plan and to react.   These wise and seasoned sailors remember the original course that their beloved vessel was intended to sail.  They know that her hull is still intact, that her masts, lines and sails — her navigational foundations — while beaten and tattered, still function as they should, and that all that need be corrected is her course.  They understand that to do this, they must regain the helm — at all costs — and begin the process of weathering the storm, so that “America” may continue her noble voyage…

…and that the sun may shine on her once more.

Copyright 2010, Robert Browning, all rights reserved.