Three of my ancestors, all three brothers, James, John, and William served in Company D of the 37th Mississippi at least as early as April 1863. In December of 1864 all three brothers were captured on the left flank during the second day's battle of the Siege of Nashville. The Tims trio was transported to Camp Douglas like cattle to what is coined by many historians today, a regular extermination camp. And known by those that suffered there, Eighty Acres of hell.
Alabama born Private William Tims died of exposure that led to pneumonia. The Chicago winter in 1864-65 was one of the coldest on records and the POWs there had little more than their old musty and tattered infantry coats to keep warm. The barracks were elevated adding to the misery of the wind and cold.

These three patriots stood together as the finest moment in my family's history. I hope to find some information regarding the 37th's flag, for I have never seen a copy or photo of the original.
I think there should be two laws regarding Confederate colors from the period whether they were regimental flags or ceremonial.
1. Any period any design or example of Confederate or state flags existing in the north under private or public ownership should be returned to the state the flag was originally made. If it's origin cannot be established, the flag should be donated to a worthy Civil War or Confederate museum in one of the thirteen states or two territories of the old Confederacy. Giving it over to the Sons of Confederate Veterans could be a great solution for orphaned Confederate flags existing in the North, for the organization is the living link of the soldiers and sailors that carried the Confederate flags into battle and immortality.
*In Norlands, Maine near Livermore there is a Confederate battle flag on display in the historical library there. It is neither being preserved appropriately nor displayed in an honorable fashion. It hangs from a pole near a giant window. Much of it is faded and tattered already. It may be very near to being too damaged by 148 years of exposure, light, dusty, and moisture. I do not know the origin of the flag but it is a Confederate flag from the period that men followed such flags with muskets and rebel yells. The Washburns, a very prominent, wealthy, and political family of Maine during the Civil War hailed Norlands as one of their bases. Most likely, the captured flag was presented to one of the Washburns by a Maine unit. Mayors, governors, senators, legislators; both North and South politicians and puffed up patriots standing their post in luxirious town homes and hotels hundreds of miles from combat posts made frequent requests to combat officers for flags captured from the enemy. Most were saved and used as decorative trophies, much like the Norlands flag still appears today! Sadly, many others were publicly burned or destroyed otherwise.
Very soon the Norlands flag will share this fate if some of us do not attempt to press the principal that the war is over. These flags having witnessed the same sacrifices on the field and in camp as the soldiers had experienced, they are as sacred as the final resting places of those brave soldiers!

Please visit http://www.norlands.org/ and voice your concern and interest in the matter. If you click on the museum link on the front page you’ll see in the left hand side of the forth photo, the wasting away of the captured battle flag.

2. It should be illegal to sell or auction any period Confederate or state flags privately or publicly. In my opinion this is as shameful and critically harmful to the history of my ancestor's struggle for independence and defense of everything and everyone in their life that was dear. Their homes. The less we preserve the less we leave to our children. Though we may never "impound" all the Confederate battle flags turning into dust in peoples' attics or junk chests, a serious new effort needs to form to bring these precious symbols of the bloodiest war in our history into the light and preservation!
One of the causes that so many Confederate flags, even those saved by museums are not preserved or displayed correctly is because both the NAACP and KKK have joined forces for generations to mislead the public of the true history and nature of these symbols of Southern heritage. For you will never see the 20th Maine regimental colors being buried in a museum basement or sold to the lowest bidder. Lest we forget that the enemy of those that charged with the 20th Maine banner happen to be many of our own ancestors!
The true history of the War against secession needs to be taught and respected. And when the true stories that these banners were a part of become as sacred to our country as the history and flags from every other period in our history, both shall be preserved. There would be no greater loss to our history than loosing its symbols.

And for the record, I believe these two "laws" should go both ways, regarding period Union flags as well. But the salvation and preservation of most Union war flags have never been as failing an issue as the plight of flags born in the Southern Confederacy.

Ha, I am trying out a new tactic to get more hits and comments on my blog.  I've been a member here for almost a year I think and of the around twenty (lengthy) posts I've contributed to the cause of revolution.  Regardless of the subject matter (or tags) I have failed to connect with the majority here.  I feel that revolution should only be excerized when there are any number of citizens or states right to use their voice.
I especially feel that it is some sort of responsibility to share these thoughts and topics, for everyone that I shared regards to a growing but preventable doom.  My contribution to those subject matters was common sense, Christianity, and a love for history.
So dam it, I think I ought to be heard!  If having a misleading subject line will bring you to my blogs I wrote for you, then why not.  In fact, aren't your heroes, whether be Obama or McCain, always reflecting those tactics?  At least I give the people a chance to slay me for my mistakes and errors in these posts.

I can't believe how disappointed I was with the American people today.  For the first time in my life I felt more love for Congress than I did for their voters.  I wish the reason why was more obvious than just a few.
Before the House voted against the 700 billion dollar, socialist, special rights for a few citizens or institutions, anti-accountable, little band aid bill, the American people were screaming fire and brimstone for their lawmakers to say nay.
The following is a note that I wrote to Bill O Reily (the GOPs spokesman in the media):

I should have felt an unchecked relief yesterday that for once the great majority of congress did not turn their back on the American people for partisan or party interests and deals.  Rather, our congress on both sides of the isles sided with the opinion of the people.  Neither party can be blamed for the bill's destruction.  Rather I think, even in spite of the total turn around of opinion, that the people truly stepped up and caused their voice to manipulate congress.  We all seem to have a very short memory considering the people decided to approve after it failed to their will. It is hard to imagine that just two days ago we demanded congress vote against it.
The second I heard the results of the congressional vote yet before the first interviews I felt a great spell of hope for our country.  I was feeling hope that had been mostly gone since Ron Paul ducked out of the race.

Congress not only moved with the will of the people, despite the turn around but it did also side with the rights of the people and their states.  Did they recognize that such a bill was unconstitutional for very important reasons?  Instead of passing another sort of legislation that would challenge our rights and our laws, congress did the responsible thing by not trading liberty for a little temporary (financial) security.
Yet, yesterday was mixed with despair over the sanity of the people.  It was announced the bill that the people had been firmly against had just been firmly defeated.  Yet, suddenly the media, Wall Street, and the people had a complete change of heart.
Before yesterday citizens wrote countless blogs, letters to the editors, congressmen, and appeared on talk and radio shoes to express their rage against a "government bail out."  Everyone felt that it was a sell out of our trust to protect financial giants with no accountability and that the banks should find a more responsible solution, just like the rest of us.
One person called it a "golden parachute."
If I am not the most confused person on earth, one day after, I am positive President Bush is the most likely other.  On one hand congress and the people's initial opinion once again shared a mutual distrust towards the president's solutions aka problems.  And that was never more obvious in the past than it was yesterday when in the midst of a financial crises and a administration in panic mode, Congress equally on both sides of the isle, shouted nay in his face.
Yet, on that same day the Dow Jones mysteriously dropped more than 700 points and the voice of the country quickly forgot its previous day's principals.  Suddenly the president that has caused so much economic punishment and casualties in two separate wars these past eight years, might have been right after all.  (We were wrong?) Suddenly a temporary security by giving big banks Federal (our) hundreds of billions of dollars, might of been pretty cool.
It was only right that you had Senator Kerry be a guest on your program last night.  Yesterday truly was a "Was against it before I was for it," moment in our history.
I give my thanks to Congress tonight.  Will they take this as a "can't please our voters no matter what," and become more reckless then in the past?  Shall they remember that despite what the public is saying now, they did exactly what it demanded before hand?  I hope at least, they are convinced they did the right thing.
They did.

Because I am neither Obama or McCain I have decided not to allow my subject line to be misleading after all.

The top five reasons to love Sarah Palin

1.) She would be the most ardent and passionate pro-lifer in an aministration since the Rogue vs. Wade verdict.  Though she is against the death of unborn babies, she is still more hypocrite than Christian.  She supports the death penalty and she supports war which usual involves wide scale death.  Anybody in the world can claim to be a Christian yet until that person attempts to follow the commandments and opposes any violations of it regardless of his causes, that person is not a Christian.  For example, The Bible says THOU SHALT NOT KILL.  There are no foote notes to that included.  You either obey the whole thing or you don't.
But I am not going to vote for Obama.  Because though he does not support causes that cause soldiers to get killed in Iraq he nevertheless favors abortion.
Because both candidates support causes that clash with multiple of my most strongest Christian beliefs, I will vote for neither.

2.) She once discussed Alaskan secession.  Many on the Donkey side of the isle will scream that she is a radical secessionist wac job while the Elephants will try to dismiss or ignore it. I mean, after all, didn't Lincoln having the reigns of the Republican party raise several armies of Northern troops to invade and destroy the South for attempting secession?
Regardless of either parties' views towards the constitutional right of secession, the right still very much exists.  First of all did the states not join the Union with as much freedom to withdraw from it?  Did any of the states or their represintives sign any oaths or contracts that forbade their will to any ends?  And most obviously, does not the X amendment read clearly that the supreme rights be reserved to the people of the states?
So constitutionally and in respect to freedom of the people, what part of Pailin's secession discussions was wrong?  Maybe it is time that we start addressing and demanding certain promised and recorded rights that have long been oppressed.
Civil War hero Admiral Raphael Semmes wrote that the revolution, though illegal under British law was a right reserved to the slaved or oppressed by God.  Yet, secession, though our government all but forbids it, is a right reserved to the people and states of the United States by the Constitution.

3. She supported the "Bridge to Nowhere."  I'm with you Sarah! Bridge to Nowhere my butt.  It would be a bride to Paris, London, or Rome.  True there are many challenges we would face the building project considering it would be thirty miles longer than the longest bridge at the present, it would go across the Baron Strait, and that more than a thousand miles of tundra wasteland exists during the first part of the vacation.
Yet, are we not Americans?  How many times have we scorned at the odds with the Washington Monument, the San Jacinto Monument, or the Golden Arch?  What about the Lake Charles Bridge, the Brooklyn Bridge, or the Golden Gate bridge?
Even though I have never been to college in my brain's mind I can envision perfectly the Bridge.  To protect the trains and other vehicles from some of the most cold and violent weather on earth, the whole expanse of the bridge would be in a tunnel like tube.  Vehicles and trains would pass through it like electricity in a wire.  It could be made large and strong enough to protect passengers from the elements and high enough off the water to protect shipping.  Such feats have been proven before.  Certainly the above ground tunnel idea has worked.  As far as the population problem, temporary stores and gas stations could be erected along the way.  Such ideas had been practiced during the gold rush to California.  The route out west was dotted by small camp towns and trading posts.  The same idea is being used along the ice roads of the north that end up at giant mines.  Rough out posts and fill up stations dot that landscape.
The need for those structures would not last forever, for I am confident this largest example a means to trade and ship overland would produce dozens of towns along the way.  And then to address the costs.  Considering that our country was prepared to spend 700 billion to help ignorant banks and trillions on depths that had aided the actual people very little, I am confident the budget could be there.  In fact, along, over, or under, the above ground bridge tunnel there could be a large or a couple large oil pipelines connecting oil rich northern Russia to the US.
As a traveler I would love to someday drive to Paris. I hate airplanes.  Yet, most importantly, our country used to build and create some pretty amazing things.  As far as those that imagine that the Freedom Tower may at least be an example of that, I don't find anything amazing about building a VIP office building upon a graveyard of pulverized terrorist victims.
Even though that very specific plot of land seems ot be a common target for terrorist attacks, wouldn't it finally be wise to leave that peace of earth alone?  It really doesn't make any more sense than if the US navy put their ships back in packed formations even in spite of the lessons of Peal Harbor attack.  Building an even taller world trade center upon the same site that terrorists on 9/11 used the height of the former Trade Center to deadly effect is as nonsense not to mention very disrespectful towards the victims.  There should be a monument (s) there, the biggest the world has ever seen, yet not stuffed with people.

Sorry for getting off topic.  I do like Sarah Pailin on some issues.  I even think she is pretty foxy!  Yet, this shouldn't be the best there is.  It is sad that since Ron Paul left the race, the only grain of light I see is that I agree with some of the issues of a VP nominee.

In the worlds of poor Charlie Brown, Oh Brother!

I first started blogging here about a year ago after seeing the wonderful editor of this site appear on a Fox News program.  Blogging was a very new thing to me so I wanted to go with the biggest and best.  I loved the concept of blogging.  For the first time since Manifest Destiny's bloody assault upon the west, Americans, regardless of their location can from their PC or black berry or even phone (wow) communicate their thoughts, grievances, beliefs, ideas, hopes, dreams, fears, achievements, questions, and public and political information to masses of people.  I have no doubt the blogging age had a serious influence upon politics and the election.
"I have a voice and I have a lot to say."-MxPx.

My personal visions, feelings, principals, ideas, hopes, dreams, fears, and values are all over the place.  I am smart and I know history, geography, and a lot of other stuff.  But it would be useless for me to blog about math.
About politics,different issues, or candidates, NOTHING nor party is an influence.  The constitution and our rights are the side you'll see me by.  Our country faces countless of issues because we do not trust our own constitution to decide them. Aside from my Ron Paul and Thomas Jefferson and Jefferson Davis principals, I am pro-ALL life (anti-abortion, anti-war, anti-capital punishment).  In other words, I feel that whoever approves of any form of knowingly killing another human, including the unborn, is a hypocrite if he or she is either against other forms or happens to be a Christian (who's Bible is blunt THOU SHALT NOT KILL   p-e-r-i-o-d).
I believe that healthcare should be a right and that we already get taxed enough to budget this (as soon as we challenge the government's spending habits). I believe that Creatism is logical and more scientifically true than evolutionism.  I that Jesus created the only road map to peace.  I believe that most Christian churches are misleading in that very few actually deeply consider or attempt to follow His commands.  I always thought it was weird that for a group of people that appears to love Jesus so much and dance the aisles because of His death and resurrection, those people usually have no clue about half of what Jesus commanded.  Nor do many of them ever attempt to practice those commands at least as much as they seem to pervert it!

Yes, I have a lot to say and that's why I am blogging.  It is not only for my own satisfactory but I also think that some of these thoughts, values, and principals may help others.  Most of these feelings, views, ideas, and lessons have been gathered up by a very unique and special life and I believe they are all a part of the same gift of life.  I will attempt to share all I can.

Today I would like to share my understanding and thoughts on the Constitution's and our responsibilities in  maintaining personal and states' rights.
Both the historical references and references of our rights, the states, and the constitution can all be sourced and authenticated as fact.  Every view is related to these facts.

Did not the states create the constitution?  Did they not freely activate it for the purpose of preserving the rights of all the people and states in the Union?  Should the volunteer of its own club not also have the right to leave?
Families work as long as their is peace, understanding, love, faith, and respect are their values.  But still, sometimes a family member can be abusive and evil and corruptive towards another, usually younger, member of the family.  Is it not the responsibility of the community and the people to either intervene and hold the abuser accountable or is the worse case scenario, remove the victim (secede the victim from the family, union until either the home is proved to be beyond a reasonable doubt, respectful of the rights and safety of the victim, or in most cases, never.
The states should have this same right.  The states joined the constitution knowing on one hand that being in a union was better than being on your own, yet on the other, trusting future generations to do what was necessary if ever, the Union "was no longer a safeguard and protection, but a menace to their rights..." (Jefferson Davis)
Republicans like to boast about being the 'accountability' party.  Yet, today's politics and system are so completely opposite of anything resembling accountability.  The fact that our states and the people will not only allow all repeating humiliation and tyranny from the government but we also let it, and its parties, and its lies influence our principals.  That is total submission and pathetic. 
Am I anti-government?  Am I a fanatic? Am I right wing or left wing or conservative or liberal?  Am I a secessionist or a terrorist? (The foundation of the origin and vision of the founders was that no two words were more different from each other than secessionist and terrorist). 
I am not any of those things yet I have a little bit of each inside me (with the exception of terrorism).  However, the most authentic and accurate description of my party and political principals is: FREEDOM. 
Freedom was an American thing.  Somehow, until 1776, no civilization in history had ever experienced quite the same success or magnitude of freedom in the new world.  It was the most perfect marriage of freedom and law that ever existed!  Many of us now either ponder, was our forefather's creation in the latter part of the 1700s perfect enough to provide every solution to every issue including the civil war to today?  Yet, the fact is, the form of government they created was perfect for whatever future generations faced.  The problem is that we are not honoring certain parts of it.  How can a solution work if it is not worked?  Again, the solutions to all our country's issues can be discovered in the same constitution all the veterans of our military and our elected officials swear to uphold! LETS UPHOLD IT!
The other obvious (to me) reason to me that national issues regarding the economy, national security, and personal rights, to name a few of all of them, are always present regardless of what administration is in office is because we ignore and do not consider our national motto, something as truly as important as the constitution.  It reads: IN GOD WE TRUST. 
How fewer problems and crises and issues would we be facing today if the constitution was upheld not only by all the men and women that swore to, but by all the citizens that owe it to their children and ancestors to respect it likewise?  How fewer crises and crimes would happen if even half our citizens honored the sacred motto of a country who's dignity and success rely souly on them?
It is not impossible.

The answers and the messages within our founder's motto and instructions are pretty dang obvious.  They were written for a people to not only understand but also approve.  In 1784, when the average citizen lacked any reading skills because the average village lacked a school, the forefathers had to draft the good news in a language simple enough for the simple man.  If it had been too complicated or vague, the weary and distrustful people would have re-declared their independence, this time from yankee doodle.

In light of this, I can not understand how any of us are having debates about any of the issues when the constitution has the authority to decide it.  The problem is that, for the politicians and law makers, the solutions within the constitution are not the kind of solutions they are looking for (How can I get reelected? How can I get away with this or that?  How can I deceive the public of the real me?  How can I get the most money to get to me?  What's in it for me)?
For the average or unaverage citizen, there are many reasons why the constitution is a forgotten tool box in the shed.  And none of these reasons are beyond our control. (It is too much work, nobody else cares, going against giants, fear, manipulated by the media and government that solutions and hope lay with your vote rather than you. What's in it for me)?  And even though the constitution was created with sensitivity towards a simple nation, most of us can only recite one line from it!  The responsibility of you or your kids becoming educated on the constitution and the responsibility of maintaining it is NOT our schools, NOT our military, NOT our government, and NOT the media.  IT IS OURS.  If we do not gather around our responsibilities, the crap that is building all over, is ours alone.

Granted, sometimes our responsibility and commitment to our flag and our country may not be simple.  It may not seem right at the time and may even create a few challenges.  One example was the Civil War.  This was the first and perhaps the greatest example in our history where not only did the government crush the constitutional rights of millions of people but a majority of them allowed it.  The Southern states had practiced their constitution rights.  The folks in those states remembered their ancestors' promise.  God had given the colonists the right of revolution for certain rights.  The constitution and the authority of the sovereign states hemselves gave the Southerns the right of secession for any cause. 
However, Lincoln and his administration gave birth to more recent tactics more powerful than honor and responsibility, it seems. Fear.  He ruled much of the north in  by martial law.  In dozens of his speeches, including the Gettysburg Speech, Lincoln constantly hinted that the fate of the nation was being decided when in fact, Southern secession would of had no effect on the exisiting Federal government, its constitution, or remaining states.  He championed the cause of slavery even though he personally wrote racist accounts in letters.  Even though the same cause did not exist one way or another on the other side. 

"The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states."-Charles Dickens, 1862

"We were not rebels; we did not fight to perpetuate human slavery, but for our rights and privileges under a government established over us by our fathers and in defense of our homes." -Richard Henry Lee, Confederate Colonel

Though it was the people of the North's duty to allow the secession of the Southern states just as it had been the duty of those states to secede and make an accountable decision regarding their future.
We will never know what kind of history would have followed if the Northern states had respected the equal rights of their Southern neighbors and allowed them to form a country of their own.  It would not have been the first time a nation was born from secession.  Colonies from England, Mexico and Cuba from Spain, Texas from Mexico.

I pray that someday we will give the states, states of we the people, back the throrn ofthrone that birthed this awesome freedom.

"If the doctrine that secession is treason be true, it matters not how grievously a State might be oppressed, by the Federal Government; she has been deprived of the power of lawful resistance, and must regain her liberty, if at all...........

Was this the sort of experiment in government, that our forefathers supposed they were making?"
-Admiral Raphael Semmes

There is a a giant line called common sense and responsibility that separates:
A. Attacking another country; invading its soil; overthrowing its president & system of government based on NO evidence that the country was any kind of threat to either us or our alleys.
B. Defending your home; your government; your family from an immediate threat from an invading and hostile country.

The true conservative is NOT an imperialist. Perhaps you have not studied the writings and platforms of conservatives throughout our history including those by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Thomas Pane, John C. Calhoun, John Tyler, Jefferson Davis or even those from more recent times, Ronald Reagan, Jessie Ventura, or Ron Paul.

While none of these conservatives would have invaded and overthrown another country based upon false evidence of terrorism, many of them were involved in wars and conflicts that had been unavoidable and for the safety of the safety of their countrymen.  
A few examples include:
The war of 1812. England invaded US soil.
The Mexican American War. Mexican troops crossed the US border along the Rio Grande under the authority of their government.
The War Between the States. United States troops refused to vacate a garrison which was within the territorial waters of the Confederate States of America.
The same month Lincoln issued a call to arms for 75,000 volunteers to cause an armed invasion of the Confederacy, and invasion not unlike the English invasion of the newly independent colonies in 1776.

The true conservative is not against war for the purpose of defense and one executed through the will and approval of the people. Yet, only a liberal (like LBJ) would nod to a war that brings nothing but misery to the US and death to Iraq and continues even without the consent of the American public.

Lincoln did start the Civil War without the consent of the people. In fact, during his administration more than 7,000 thousand citizens including agents of the press were arrested and jailed without trial simply for opposing his invasion of the Southern States.  One of these men was none other than the grandson of Francis Scott Key.
Though it is so that the majority of the Northern States did favor causing bloodshed against their Southern neighbors, I believe that it was because they were more interested in putting their industrial and war profiting interests before admitting the South's legal right to be free.

One thing that I have never been able to understand was how modern day Republicans seem to brag at being the party started by Lincoln even though that party held a far different platform than today's.  While the modern day Republican platform stands for lesser government and less taxes and more faith based community awareness, Lincoln went to war to uphold that central government had absolute authority over the states and the people. Lincoln going further beyond the bounds of the constitution created more sperate forms of taxation during four years than during any other point in history including World War II.  As goes faith, Lincoln was the only American president to of included doubts towards Christianity in his writings.

The South did not break the law of the land but had upheld it. Secession was included into the United States Constitution for two very important reasons. The right of secession was included so that it would be clear to future generations that the states owned the final say and authority over their destiny-that the states and their people could never be harmed by the Federal Government as long as they had a way out if need be. The second reason that the right of secession was included (ironically) was that in the event of a state or states separation, a civil war or revolution would be avoided. For in 1776 the colonies had no legal right to leave England and that was what justified England's decision to fight. By making secession a legal practice within the constitution, separation would be a protected form of action.  
It was the North under Lincoln who did not abide the law of the land. Lincoln and the North took the rights of decision, free will, and self government from not only the states and the people then but the future generations of all Americans.  

Secession was included into our constitution because our forefathers knew that no matter how perfect the government they formed was, it was no guarantee that it would always be as it should. They knew that they had no control over how future generations may lead the government.  They had no certainty that the government would always follow the constitution.

When the Southern states agreed that their role in the government was second class and inferior to that of the North, made more obvious by Lincoln's election, they saw no alternative to submission except secession.  
Yet, despite the constitution, Lincoln and his administration led an armed invasion of over one million volunteers to occupy the Southern states...Atlanta, Charleston, Columbia, Richmond, Jackson all burned and destroyed by men from Illinois, Maine, and Minnesota. Men from Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama died by the thousands in POW camps in Chicago, Elmira, and Boston.

The history that has been rewritten was the history of the United States War against the Confederate States.

The true conservative (to the earlier point) is not a party man.  He is one who pledges allegiance not to a king, queen, president, or flag, but to his rights.  Rights not given to him by a government, legislator, or country but by the people.  If Republicans or any other party does not uphold these old (aka conservative) ideas then he is not a conservative.  

Of course there are many other ideas and principals that a conservative considers but these I included are what define him most.  At the time, Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin were liberals.  Yet, their ideas gave birth to today's conservative.

Several weeks ago I watched an episode of the TV series, Thirty Days.  I am not sure what network it was on but it really doesn't matter.  I wanted to make some comments on it then but had long since been busy with other things.  But I never forgot.
This particular episode included an anti-gun advocate that was invited to spend thirty days with meat and potatoes gun-loving Americans.  The young woman reportedly knew some victims of violence.

One of the first things I noticed was when she rebuked a family's desire to defend themselves with guns by saying that the family was too paranoid.  Yet, throughout the first part of the show, the young woman appeared very fearful and expressed anxiety (and paranoia) about being under a roof with gun owners.  It is a very wry double standard when you start think about it. 
Why couldn't this young woman see that maybe the family experienced a similar paranoia as her that was caused by living in a world where criminals own guns regardless of the laws?  Maybe that is why this family chose to get guns? 
The young woman was paranoid about being in a house with guns.  Maybe this family was paranoid about being in a world with guns.  Why couldn't the young woman not understand why this family chose to address this fear by owning guns instead of trusting unarmed school staffs, workplaces, and other unarmed places in public to protect them?  Why would it be so hard to understand why it seems more logical to trust guns in your own home to protect you rather than emergency systems that may or may not arrive on time?
In a world where the fear of violence is real, the family featured in this show addressed that fear using their brains.  For there is no better way to address the fear of becoming a victim than by gaining the most logical means to protect yourself from becoming one.

I just can't believe that young woman or any other person in this country can actually believe anti-gun laws in this country actually protect anybody.  The fact is criminals will have guns always.  Gun laws would only limit the number of law abiding gun owners.  Was making street drugs and prostitution or domestic violence illegal as successful as we would like? No!  Making things unlawful has never completely curved the actions of a society.  Yet, unlike many things that are now illegal, the right to bear arms is not only the best and most logical means of protecting ones self and family but it is also one of the most specific rights guaranteed by the constitution.  By limiting our right to bear arms, our government is not only decreasing our chances to live through an act of violence but it is also stripping us of one of our country's proudest virtues and sacred of rights!

Near the end of the episode, the young woman took the family's son, Zack on a field trip to visit a major college nearby.  Her goal was to attempt to alter his affection towards guns and gear him toward more acceptable interests.  If I was Zack or his family, I would have personally been offended at her disrespect towards Zac's choice to honor a sacred family tradition and right as a citizen.  By attempting to distract Zack's love for rifles and taking him to view a college, the young woman was basically urging him to become interesting in something else.  She was attempting to distract him from an interest that made him safe and close to his family as if that interest were towards drugs or porn. 
Lastly, when the two were visiting the college campus I couldn't help but thinking of Virginia Tech.  How many dozens of lives could have been saved if any of the students or professors caught in the cross fire of that terrible tragedy actually had guns on their person?  That the young woman visiting this college campus looked so safe and comfortable spoke legions of her ignorance.  It was evident during those scenes that she had no clue just how vulnerable and unprotected she and Zack were visiting that campus where no armed good guys were around.  While visiting that college, how could she be so confident and sure that they would not witness random acts of violence that are becoming more common at universities today?

Because we can not ban every single bad guy and loose screw from owning a fire arm and because we cannot have a portable policeman living with every person 24/7, Americans need to take the safety of themselves and their families more seriously. Everyone needs to reconsider the gross irresponsibility towards our safety we are allowing when anti-gun laws are passed. 

Until every American appeals and demands its full and unrestricted rights to own firearms, I do not see us taking the safety of our families that seriously.
What a sick distortion; since 9/11 we have allowed our government to snap due process for arrests and charges in two, dismantle our privacies, and bury our freedoms in the name of the Patriot Act, Shock and Awe, and Operation Iraqi Freedom to name a few from a few dozen.  That any of these measures have made us any safer or have produced anything other than attacks upon on our rights is a farce to the honest person. 
And now, as our government produces more anti-gun laws, we are becoming much less safe and secure from an enemy much more common than terrorism, domestic violence, school shootings, kidnappings, and home invasions. And again, as with post 9/11 national security measures, anti-gun laws are further breaking new world liberty to pieces.

Our liberties and rights protected by the law are being killed.  And why not?  We the people and our states were charged with the responsibility of protecting the laws that protect our rights.  For several decades, average Americans have avoided the responsibility of maintaining our rights and protecting them from injury by anyone including the government.  The problem is not about what is happening but about what we are letting happen.

Before I come upon the point I originally logged on to share, I would first like to share my thoughts regarding the pro-McCain and anti-Obama propaganda being advertised here.  If Townhall is attempting to produce a conservative vibe here by showing this support for McCain and opposition towards Obama, I must say that you've lost me terribly.
The conservative message, as I understand it is a principal dictated by old values that not only made our country a success story once upon a time but was also the same spirit that helped found this nation of sovereign states.  The true conservative's role is to not become blindly loyal to a man just because he belongs to a certain party.  Rather the conservative role is to preserve the most precious and endangered right that the Federal government should have no control or influence over the sovereignty of the states and the people of those states.
Being a conservative is about not stumping or standing for rights protected by the constitution such as the right to bear arms, privacy, and countless other freedoms but actually living them.
Enough of McCain's history in the senate and plans if elected to the white house stray as far from conservative roots as Obama!  In fact, picking a woman for his choice of VP says clear enough that he is attempting to rally Hillary's camp to his side.  A conservative candidate should be concentrated on rallying conservatives to his side by declaring conservative ideas.  Again, instead, he is more concerned with attracting Hillary's liberal numbers only because they are large numbers.  He is more concerned about gaining the coolest job in the world than performing the responsibilities of a Republican platform.  His decision to prolong the Iraq war for another hundred years if need be is so distant from the values of conservatives.  True conservatives believe that the true wars are being waged at home and that the money they are being taxed by the billions should be spent for the home of the taxed rather than overseas.  The true conservative's values and ideas are dictated by those that developed our country from the secession from England.
A. Lincoln was the first Republican president.  During that period in history, the Republican party stood for big government, central powers, high tariffs, and limited rights.  It does seem that the party is coming that way again or at least merging with the Democrats.  Lincoln insisted a war upon the Southern Confederacy without the consent or approval of the states in the Union that did not secede.  When even the first draft in history, the first income tax, sales tax, and property tax failed to produce for Lincoln the necessary number of combat soldiers and materials, his government then started recruiting Irish and German immigrants by the hundreds of thousands to fight for the South.
Lincoln motivated thousands of new immigrants to our country to use them towards his goal of empire and to conquer the Southern States.
McCain in turn wanted to offer amnesty and other pro-illegal immigration laws for immigrants from Mexico so that big business he is invested in would be able to have local, unregulated, and cheap labor and manufactures.
The spirit of true conservatives today, war should not be declared without the consent of the people and their congress or the consent of the states.  Our country should not be involved in oversees affairs no matter what the reasons.  Lastly, all taxing and spending including that for national defense should be limited to the consent and governing of those who are taxed.
A conservative does not want a president who wants to continue a war without the approval or consent of the people.

Ron Paul was a true conservative candidate.  Yet because most Republicans as well as Democrats choose to protect private and personal interests rather than principals, McCain is the safest choice.  The conservative American who shows the heart of 1776 America, 1836 Texas and 1861 Dixie, the conservative American that sees no hope in a presidential candidate but rather the people and their constitution is perhaps the most surprised minority in our country.  His message and his ideas are censured from all parts of our great society.  For if the voice of the conservative was declared loud enough and brought into being, politicians would be held accountable for acting beyond the authority of the people and constitution, corrupt ties between Washington and international business would be exposed and demolished, and the media and government giants of our country would have less power and force than the people.
In short, anyone that profits from the demolition of our rights does surely shiver when in the presence of an American Conservative.

Townhall, are you Republican or are you a Conservative?  Are you for war or are you for the people's fight?
Lastly, how can you knock the Democrats for their pro abortion stands when the deaths of hundreds of thousands of middle east citizens and American soldiers is heroic?

America...led by a bunch of stinking idiots.  Oh my God...I said it!  If I were in politics I would be buck and gagged by the hypocrite judge, jury, and executer aka our government.  Holy jeepers, I did it again! I actually said aloud the very two views that most (honest) Americans feel.  They are also the very two views that people are too afraid to admit (out loud anyway).

The average citizen (the last line of defense) considers the rivalry between the Republicans and Democrats as bull poo and not worth caring about any more than one should care about promises that come from the top and out of violations of the Constitution.  Our destiny has never and should never be ruled by two parties of hypocrites and power lusters.  When this country was founded, it sought its destiny by staying in the center of a constitutional path.  The people as a whole, united, gave their hearts and all to maintain a government forever controlled by the people, the states, and their Constitution.

Today, to the disgust of a surprising number across the political lines, feel that both parties are different only by what is printed and promised rather than what is actually stood for and upheld.  If you ask A N Y American he or she would tell you that when ever has a president actually made at least one stand for his party's principals.  That such actions are as uncommon as a miracle saving an unborn baby from an abortion.  The two stumps are little more than what one candidate or another feels could be the fastest cart on the track to the coolest pad in America, 1600 PA Ave.

In case you are bewildered about where exactly is party allegiance, you have the right to know (actually you don't have a right to know). I belong to the VPOAP (VERY PISSED OFF AMERICAN PARTY).  If you never heard of it or belong to it now, I would be shocked.  The party boasts of more than three hundred million members!  Democrats and the Republicans running for office or maintaining a public image are failing, quicker by the day, to make voters believe the donkey or elephant poo.  Poo is what their promises are worth to the citizens of the United States of Confusion.  Our beloved national motto, In God We Trust. (Has it been removed from the currency yet? At least it remains imprinted upon my 2001 quarter and 2003 penny.) This beloved oath shared by the true popular vote offers peace and hope to more and more Americans that are beginning to feel a widening distance between they and their government.  Many more view the current bad system of things as a distant threat.

Ron Paul is surely the Sam Adams or Thomas Payne of our day.  However, it is terribly sad to note that Adams and Payne had a greater chance of success than Ron Paul being that England was not so much a force to be reckoned with compared to a corrupt and carefully fabricated behind the scenes election rules of today.

Supporters of the unique tyranny in our country might offer a pathetic appeal that Ron Paul had been on the primary ballots and lost his chance when the voters failed to respond favorably during the primary elections.  However, the low number of votes in Ron Paul's favor was not a fault of his own or his message but rather a massive media dominated blitz of censorship and manipulation.  For whatever reasons, reasons that would spark a revolution if they were made public, the media gushed every fraction of their power and investments to manipulate an election where Obama and McCain would absolutely be on the final ticket.  Perhaps their plan to carry McCain's nomination was supported because they knew he would be the most sure Republican to loose against Obama. (Who honestly believes that McCain could win?  Although not so much as Ron Paul, he is now suffering at least a porportionate taste of being snubbed by the media.  For Obama, in comparrison seems to already be making well documented international state trips!
Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC etc, etc, are nothing more or less or different than other billion dollar cooperations.  And just as most billion dollar cooperations lobby to help put candidates of mutal interest into office so too must the media cooperations as well.  Again, who of us (at least those of us with principal) could ever hope for an honest explanation of just how the media companies will profit from the election of one person over the other?

Ron Paul didn't have a chance from the second he did not make a deal.  When he declared to America that his loyalty and service belonged to the people and the states and to nothing else, the machine began its savage plot against him.

How can I be sure and confident of this level of corruption?  Most Americans do, yet, again, their voices have yet to sound and unite in order to cause a positive effect.
The interior campaigns to replace Ron Paul's message with silence and elude his presence by avoiding him had been very obvious and conspicuous during the length of the primary season.  Proof of the existence of this level of corruption exists when joining a stroke of common sense to a list of recent historical facts.  Of all the national televised Republican debates, every other candidate was able to speak more in one debate than the time allowed Ron Paul from all the debates combined!  Though Ron Paul had raised more funds to create prime time air space than Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee combined, but a fraction of the networks agreed to air them.  And even those networks seldom ever included his campaign support.  Ron Paul did not receive the votes necessary because throughout the primary season, curtains of censorship motivated by private goals fell between a very worthy candidate and the voters of our country.

If the media born from the first amendment of the constitution had replaced the media of today in time for the election season, Americans would of learned, as is their right, all the truths that the news was created to produce.  Rather than learning on the news John Stewart thinks that McCain is old, or that Paris Hilton shaved her head (oops, never mind, that was Britney Spears' bald head on the front page cover of the Times) we would instead read that Ron Paul boasts the greatest number of supporters under the age of thirty than any other presidential candidate in history.

(Isn't it a conscience that the largest camp of Ron Paul supporters, the youth, are also the ONE group of American citizens that do not enjoy the same suffrage including the right to vote that every other citizen type has secured)?

Rather than not reporting or informing America detailed and signifigant cooverage regarding Ron Paul's values and commitments to national sovereignty, 2nd amendment rights, pro-life, troop withdraw from international squabbles, states rights, alternative energy and energy independence, the American dollar and economy, a constitutional media would give voters an equal and fair balance between his principals and those of the other candidates.  A constitutional media would not hinder our judgment or understanding of the different candidates by offering their own personal views.  The media should only exist primarily to satisfy our right to know.  It SHOULD NOT exist to decide what we should know and what we should not.  Nor should it exist to attempt to bombard and manipulate public conscience by publicly expressing opinions regarding their stories.

Ron Paul was a living example of this recent common spirit of negativity towards the present as well as the equally shared appeal for a positive change.  The well known symbols of his campaign such as the figures of Washington and Jefferson and the constitution offer a factual portrait of the congressman's principals.  The well worn and spoken term, Ron Paul Revolution does well to offer an understanding of the extent of change his election would bring.  And though all seems lost for him, American voters still have the power to elect him.  This country is YOURS and you, even in the spite of all this mess, have the true right as well as the opprotunity to make any decision to change any part of it and recreate its destiny.   On election day only one power lives. Ours.  Do not let the media or the system of things dictate or decide how you use that power, lest you surrender it to their will.  Research Ron Paul, help support his causes, and on election day write in his name.  Are we the people going to allow the media to alter our election day conscience just for the simple reason that they censured Ron Paul and say that it is useless to vote for him?

The fact that no other candidate could claim the same number of bi-partisan supporters and voters hailing from both parties than Ron Paul, admits to the point I made earlier regarding the true Americans' disenchantment with the illusion that candidates fail to represent their party if elected.

Jefferson Davis, the only president to have served as president of the Confederate States of America during its four year lifetime between 1861 and 1865 wrote in his last executive speech to his people, "If you but will it, then you are free."

Only when the people decide to practice a power greater than the media and Washington DC combined will a patriot like Ron Paul have an opportunity to provide his service to the people by serving in the executive branch.

And only when, in a burst of frustration for relief, the American people mount the stars with their concerns, will freedom and independence be ours again!