Anti-Gun Deception On The Senate Floor

Did we mention that our opponents are deliberately deceptive?

What--you mean they'll still give an A-rating to someone who votes for Eric Holder?

I want you to take a few minutes and read what NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox has to say about Holder, naturally under the "Vote Freedom First" header. Among other things:

...Holder's history of aggressive anti-gun activism is even worse than Emanuel's record of media-focused PR stunts.

Holder has always been among the first in front of the cameras to exploit tragedy for political gain. From Columbine to the September 11 attacks, there was no event in which Holder couldn't find some inspiration for gun bans, gun registration, gun rationing and more. Just weeks after terrorists used box cutters to turn airplanes into guided missiles, Holder wrote in the Washington Post, "One measure that is an essential part of any plan is the need to tighten our nation's gun laws, which allow the easy and legal sale of firearms to terrorists and criminals."

Holder claimed, mistakenly, "No court has ever said that the Second Amendment actually says that. I think, if you look at it, it talks about bearing guns in a well-regulated militia. And I don't think anywhere it talks about an individual." Holder most recently signed a brief...in the Heller case that "The Second Amendment does not protect firearm possession or use that is unrelated to participation in a well-regulated militia."

But if senators don't "Vote Freedom First," well, anybody who has a problem with that just doesn't understand how politics works.

And forget talking filibuster. With the betrayal by all those A-rated republicans on the Judiciary Committee, we're told we just don't have the numbers. And why did they feel comfortable with betrayal again? Where was the NRA-ILA Alert leading a concerted effort to oppose Holder from Day One, to write, call and email senators, to publicly, loudly and repeatedly make it known that "Vote Tyranny First" would not be cost-free?

Right. After what Cox just told us, we're supposed to turn around and accept that this is just not important enough to expend political capital on? Besides, activist gun owners would be so worn out from making a few phone calls and sending a few letters that they'd just be totally spent when AWB2 comes around. What, you think we can walk now and chew gun six months later?

Which I guess means a vote for cloture if someone does strap 'em on to filibuster won't be held against them, either. Or against any of those A-rated and endorsed "pro-gun" democrats:

If the assumption is "all the current Democratic senators," what can we expect from our new shining "pro-gun Democrat" star? Or we might ask where our "true champion of Second Amendment freedoms" Max Baucus stands...or Tim Johnson...or...

There is one point where I agree with the Lairds of Fairfax. There is anti-gun deception on the Senate floor. And it is deliberate.

Vanishing Point Reappears

FOX TV Movie releasing to DVD in March
By David Codrea

PRESS RELEASE:
“Charles Robert Carner’s action-packed remake of the cult classic 'Vanishing Point' roars onto DVD from Anchor Bay Entertainment, March 8, 2005. Viggo Mortensen (“The Lord of the Rings”) stars as Kowalski, the lone hero in the Dodge Challenger who leads an army of lawmen on a wild car chase across the American West…”

Viggo Mortensen in VANISHING POINT
Produced by Alan C. Blomquist
Directed by Charles Robert Carner
Screenwriter Charles Robert Carner
“Vanishing Point” also stars Jason Priestley, Christine Elise, Keith David, Steve Railsback, John Doe and Peta Wilson
________________________

HISTORY
Back when I was young and immortal, I fancied myself fast behind the wheel. But this was the era of muscle cars, and as proud as I was of my old Buick V-8, it fell short of the "gold standard"--it wasn't a Mopar.

As if to remind boys like me of our place in the food chain, the movie “Vanishing Point” came screaming into theaters, featuring Barry Newman as the pill-popping Kowalski, who leads police on an interstate chase over a bet. But for me, the real star of the film was the white 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T with the 440 Magnum engine.

“Vanishing Point” became a hit with a cult following, for many, the benchmark for car chase movies. There was no way for me to know at the time that a generation later it would bring a friend into my life, resulting in collaborative efforts on GunTruths.com and the Citizens of America national advertising campaign for gun rights.

When I first heard of Charles Robert Carner I was producing a newsletter for the Westside Los Angeles NRA Member’s Council, 2nd Amendment West, my first foray into gun rights commentary. Because he was a nominal member of the Council and wanted to publicize the film to gun owners, Charlie contacted me about his soon-to-be-broadcast television movie for 20th Century-Fox, a remake of the Newman classic.

“What is this guy,” I remember thinking to myself, “nuts?”

Besides, what did a car movie have to do with guns?

As it turned out, not that much--at least, not as it applies to We the People. But it had plenty to do with the main reason we have guns. It had plenty to do with freedom.

What follows is not going to be a “movie review” per se, as much as a series of observations. You can read a review I am told is good here. I informed Charlie I didn’t want to read it until after I had finished this article, to avoid any influence on what I wanted to say.
________________________

THE FILM (and why gun owners/liberty activists should care)
First impressions: Gentle guitar notes set a sad, serene mood. A horned toad establishes the terrain. Machine sounds invade—bulldozers, it turns out, doing what? Squad car lights are flashing. Helicopter blades thud. Other instruments have joined the guitar; the music is more urgent now, and ominous. A Man in Black directs activities. The bulldozers have formed a roadblock. A white Challenger appears over a rise, pursued by flashing police cars.

Protestors carry signs on the sidelines. One, just briefly visible, reads “Don’t Forget Mt. Carmel.”

This is a “mainstream” television movie?

“If you do not stay back,” a bullhorn blares, “you will be arrested.”

The Challenger stops. We see a close up shot of Kowalski, the driver. His face looks grim, determined, resigned.

It is Easter Sunday in Riddle, ID.

Basic Plot/Synopsis:
Former Army Ranger and racer Kowalski restores vintage muscle cars and delivers them to customers. While in transit to deliver a 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T, he learns his pregnant wife, who suffers from Lupus, has been admitted to the hospital and is gravely ill. Unable to schedule a flight at the local airport, he decides to take advantage of the awesome machine at his disposal and drive from New Mexico to the hospital in Boise. Cops stop him for speeding. They won't listen to him and want to take him in to process his citation, which will result in a long delay. Desperate, Kowalski takes off and the chase is on. And then the feds get involved.

In Carner's words, "The story is also a spiritual quest." It explores Kowalski's religious awakening, thanks to his wife, as well as the deep bond and commitment the two have made to each other. Faith and the sanctity of marriage--there are two concepts Hollywood doesn't beat to death.

Important Differences:
The car looks the same as it did in the Newman classic. There is a difference, we learn--the 440 Magnum has been replaced with a 426 Hemi.

One big difference is with Kowalski. Mortensen's has a first name (Jimmy), and unlike the pill-popper in the original, the new Kowalski has a purpose.

There's another big difference. This remake focuses its lens on the government's War on Freedom, and the evil tactics they employ.

"In the 25 years between Richard Sarafian's original and my remake," Carner writes, "the right and the left had switched places. It was deep in the Clinton era. The 'counter-cultural' 'anti-establishment' attitude of the original gave it a hip, '60's left-liberal-nihilism. In my remake, it's the small businessman (once the backbone of America) who has become the outcast - and that neo-fascist state is populated by Leftists. The FBI = the Gestapo. The theme - the individual vs the state - is the same; it's just that the state is now the former '60's radicals in power."

Memorable Characters:
That's why my favorite character in the new VP is The Man in Black, sinister FBI supervisor Warren Taftley, played as the Javert to Mortensen's Valjean by Tony-winning stage star Keith David. We first meet him when the camera pans down from portraits of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, as he is instructing a subordinate to tie Kowalski's flight in with drugs and guns.

"How do you figure guns?" the agent asks.

"Idaho. Extremists. Right-wing militias," Taftley replies. "That's our way in--domestic terrorism, high explosives, planning another Oklahoma City."

"It could be--but we don't have any evidence," the agent cautions.

"We'll get it," Taftley confidently assures him. "He's run across four state lines. It's gotta be something big."

In the minds of those corrupted by power, there can be no innocent explanation for a subject exercising freedom. We are all suspects. And evidence is just a formality.

Carner did something cool here in the casting, breaking away from sterotypes--having a black man represent corrupt authority to the point of being an enthusiastic persecutor. That had to be a very liberating role to play, and Mr. David does it well.

"We worked Keith's shooting schedule around a play he was doing," Charlie tells me. "He was great and he really enjoyed playing a guy who assumed his own righteousness to the point of absolute dictatorship."

There are other great characters as well--Kowalski is assisted in evading his pursuers by a happenstance ally, a libertarian/Constitutionalist talk radio broadcaster known as "The Voice," portrayed by Jason Priestley, in another bit of inspired casting that certainly helps break the sterotype of a Beverly Hills 90210 heartthrob.

Replacing the hip "SuperSoul" role Cleavon Little played so well in the original VP, The Voice warns Kowalski about his pursuers so that he can take alternate routes, all the while decrying tyrannical abuses and philosophizing to his listeners about liberty-oriented themes, and how "The Bill of Rights is as forgotten as the Dead Sea Scrolls."

"Once upon a time," The Voice laments, "the police would have given this man an escort, instead of trying to run him into the ground!"

Another good portrayal is turned in by Steve Railsback, playing Sgt. Preston of the New Mexico State police.

"It takes a Mopar to catch a Mopar," Preston explains to his deputy, abandoning his squad car for a black '68 Charger R/T in a subtle tribute to another great car chase film, Bullitt. (The Charger should have blown the doors off Steve McQueen's 390 fastback Mustang).

The rest of the cast acquit themselves nicely as well. Christine Elise as Raphinia, Kowalski's wife, provides a moral anchor and spiritual mentor for Jimmy, and the gorgeous Peta Wilson, as the Motorcycle Girl, plays a provocative temptress and then ally.

The Ending:
I won't reveal it here-- you'll have to get the DVD and see it for yourself. I will say that Carner doesn't let up on his freedom theme. We see the protestors more clearly now. In addition to the "Mt. Carmel" sign, there's one that reads "Remember Ruby Ridge."

How did he get away with it on Establishment TV?

"You can tell I had a lot of fun on the movie," he tells me. "When I wrote the script, I just ranted away - went for it. I figured when the network started whining, I could pull back a little and still respect myself in the morning. But when Viggo signed on - and was only available right this minute - that first draft got green-lit. And the network never squawked. I kept all the politics in the final cut."

Carner's is an important voice in the film industry for principles of freedom that are almost universally ignored. "Vanishing Point" is a good example of popular art we could use a lot more of.
_______________________

CHARLES ROBERT CARNER FILMOGRAPHY
Chicago-born Charles Robert Carner began working in the entertainment industry after graduating valedictorian of his class at Columbia College, where he directed the film Assassins, starring Joe Mantegna, which was named Best Student Film at the Chicago International Film Festival.

Carner then went to work as a story editor for director Tony Bill, writing screenplays in his spare time. His first produced script was Seduced, starring Gregory Harrison and Cybill Shepherd. He followed that with the action-adventure feature Gymkata; Let's Get Harry, with Mark Harmon, Robert Duvall and Gary Busey; and the telefilm Eyes of a Witness, starring Jennifer Grey and Daniel J. Travanti. Carner expanded into producing on the feature film Blind Fury, with Rutger Hauer. He then began realizing his lifelong dream of directing his own scripts. He began with episodes of "Midnight Caller", "Reasonable Doubts" and "The Untouchables", before moving on to such television movies as A Killer Among Friends and One Woman's Courage.

Carner's list of television movies continued to expand, with such titles as Vanishing Point, starring The Lord of the Rings’ Viggo Mortensen, and The Fixer, starring Jon Voight, both of which went on to win several awards. In July 2000, his film Who Killed Atlanta's Children?, starring Jim Belushi and Gregory Hines debuted on Showtime and became that network's highest rated movie of the year. Carner made a huge splash on basic cable when he wrote the TNT Western Crossfire Trail, the highest-rated cable movie in television history, starring Tom Selleck. He wrote, directed and executive produced the holiday hit Christmas Rush for TBS Superstation, starring Dean Cain and Eric Roberts, and directed Red Water, the highest-rated basic cable movie in history, starring Lou Diamond Phillips and Kristy Swanson for TBS Superstation. His last network directorial effort, Judas, aired on ABC Television in 2004.

Mr. Carner is a Life Member of both the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club, serves on the Executive Committee of Catholics in Media, and is a biographee in Who's Who in America.

You can read his gun commentaries here. (Click on "GunTruths Correspondents")

--Report compiled from various sources including Mr. Carner.

More from the Ghost of Thomas Jefferson

The following was forwarded by Len Savage. The author, in the tradition of PUBLIUS, is unknown.

Once the Founding Fathers had broken the chains of tyranny they realized that what stood before them was a task unequaled in history. Civilizations have always risen and fallen, usually due to the enlightened or misguided paths the leaders chose. Having set the stage for a new civilization guided by the ideals of personal responsibility, honor, and freedom, the men who cast off the oppressors of their time found that creating a nation bound by laws that prohibited a government that set itself apart from the people was a task not easily accomplished.

To express the difficulty they faced to future generations so that their intent and desires would not and could not be questioned, they documented much of their discussions. The prime example is of course the Federalist Papers. Notes from the First and Second Continental Congress provide insight as well. Though these documents do exist and are exquisitely detailed as to the intent of the Founding Fathers, most American citizens do not know or understand what is contained within these historic pages. Sadly, while the technological knowledge base has increased over the centuries, the fundamental understanding of history and civic lessons of the past are being neglected, dooming the United States to follow other civilizations that fell to the burdensome weight of their governments. This lack of education is the leading culprit that places the United States in the dire position it now is.

Recent passage of laws such as the misleadingly named Patriot Act and the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act has subtly eroded away the freedoms recognized in the Bill of Rights. The lack of public outcry to such travesties of justice and freedom is purely shocking.

The men who created this new nation knew that the right to express discontent to the Government was a paramount right that only existed if the ability to vocalize such redress of grievance was reinforced by the capability to physically prevent the Government from taking an action that the citizenry felt compelled to stop. This is the foundation of the recognition of the right to use force to defend life, liberty and freedom. The Founding Fathers outlined this in the Second Amendment with the clear intention, as shown by documentation of the period, to prevent a new dictatorship from occurring in the new United States.

A perfect example of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in action dates back to the late nineteen-forties. Athens, Tennessee became a battleground when armed citizens prevented election fraud and the foundations of a local tyrant. Yet, how many civics textbooks used in the school systems in our nation have even a single sentence in reference to this small but historically significant event?

The men who stood against tyranny in Athens, Tennessee believed in the words and deeds of the Founding Fathers. Instead of kneeling to the iron fist of a dictator, these men risked their lives to uphold the belief that no man is above the law.

Unfortunately, the events in Tennessee were nearly a decade and a half late. During the nineteen-twenties, the first real nationwide push to dictate restrictions upon the citizens became real. Prohibitionists demonized imbibing of alcohol and successfully barred the practice by forcing their position on everyone, even those who disagreed. Two things of paramount importance happened with the passage of the Amendment. The first thing to occur was the willful disregard of the public to abide by the restriction. This set into motion a new view of the Government and laws in which were passed. The response by the Government was one that haunts the nation to this day. The creation of what would be considered one of the most hated agencies associated with the United States Government came into being. When Prohibition was abolished, instead of learning from the experience, the United States Government attempted to follow the same insane path by passing into law the 1934 National Firearms Act. The publicized goal of this law was to prevent access to machine guns and certain other arms by the criminal element that came to exist due directly to the failed attempt at banning alcohol. A database was created and a tax was imposed on the transfer of machine guns, silencers, and long guns with barrels shorter than a specific length. Though the law was highly unconstitutional, most people remained silent on the matter since the precedent had been set less than a decade before when the citizens ignored Prohibition. This silence was considered approval by a greatly misdirected Congress. A new department came into being solely designed to manage the database and to aid in enforcing the law. Within a few decades, this department would grow to become a vile example of tyranny within the borders of the United States.

When Congress passed the 1968 Gun Control Act, one of the worst blows to the Constitution occurred. A seemingly insignificant phrase contained within the new law set the stage for decades of horror. The law delegated to the Attorney General the power to determine the status of a firearm based upon its sporting suitability. The so-called sporting purpose clause allowed the Attorney General to unconstitutionally interpret the law recklessly and loosely. It wasn't long before the duty of determining sporting purpose was further delegated to the BATF with disastrous results.

Since that time, the BATF has repeatedly re-interpreted the sporting purpose clause to suit its needs of the moment leading to unjust prosecutions and unjustifiable deaths. Instead of addressing those seeking a redress of grievance, Congress has repeatedly ignored complaints from the public and professional firearms community. The result of this has been an emboldening of action by the BATF further infringing upon the rights and freedoms of citizens.

This has culminated to the point where the BATF has openly begun to operate outside the law. Ignoring legal mandate, the BATF is now repeatedly creating evidence using the sporting purpose clause to justify their actions. By using an undefined term called "readily restorable", meaning that a firearm can be made into a machine gun without setting standards for what defines readily, the BATF is now making determinations with no basis in scientific procedures or standards, leaving the public openly questioning what is legal under BATF mandate and what isn't.

To say that choices for Congress and the Presidency are lacking is an understatement. No longer do people of good character and upstanding moral qualities offer to sacrifice their time to perform the civic duty of becoming an elected official. Instead, those who would seek to increase their personal power and glory attempt to command the field. With this appalling situation the citizens must seek justice through the courts. When District of Columbia v. Heller was appealed to the Supreme Court, the possibility of justice prevailing became a possibility leaving the political spectrum behind.

This possibility concerns the BATF greatly. Congress has made itself an accomplice to the illegal actions of the BATF by refusing to address the illegal actions of the agency and when it invoked "National Security" to conceal the committee hearings regarding the confirmation of Mr. Michael Sullivan to the position of Director of the BATFE. Instead of addressing the concerns of the people, Congress has decided to separate itself from the people even further. BATF has for many years lobbied Congress, though highly illegal, for its own ends. Without an opportunity to lobby the Court, the BATFE must now decide on how it will address future issues should it survive intact after the District of Columbia v. Heller decision comes down.

The conduct of the BATFE will most likely be of concern to the Court in their decision making process. At least one Justice is familiar with the process required by the BATFE regarding the NFA. Documentation available through the Congressional Research Staff and other documentation available on the internet regarding the less than appropriate conduct of the BATFE and the unprofessional actions by employees of the BATFE in court and during professional contact with the firearms industry should have a great impact on the Court.

Would the Founding Fathers approve of the nation as it rests today? That is something every citizen must ask. It is not time to water that famous tree while hope still exists. Should that change, undoubtedly the citizens will come to understand what their forefathers knew at Concord, Lexington and not so long ago in Athens.

With warmest regards-
The Ghost of Thomas Jefferson

[More from Jefferson's Ghost]

BATFU-Twin* Declares Supremacy Over First Amendment

Weed brewer Vaune Dillmann faces possible sanctions or fines from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau* if he continues to brew and sell beer with bottle caps printed with the label "Try Legal Weed."

Yep, this is what the federal power junkies have nothing better to stone out on, all courtesy of the tone set and authorized by "The Vote Freedom First President."

This is the level of control the Masters strung out on authority abuse insist on. And their message is unmistakeably clear: Obey or be destroyed.

Is it me or is there something in the air today? The absurdist outrages just keep rolling in.

[Via Plug Nickel Times]

* The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, shortened to Tax and Trade Bureau or TTB, is a bureau of the United States Department of the Treasury. On January 24, 2003, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (the Act) split functions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), into two new organizations with separate functions. First, the Act established The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) under the Department of the Treasury. Second, the Act transferred certain law enforcement functions from Treasury to the Department of Justice. The ATF was transferred to the Justice Department and was renamed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Cavalry Arms Update: Taping the Halves Together

At that time the inspector submitted the two halves of the receiver to Firearms Technology Branch. Firearms Technology Branch determined the two halves were a gun as soon as they were in the same location because someone could tape them together and make a firearm that fired at least one round.

First they tell them they can, then they tell them they can't. Then they monitor activities so they know nothing is being hidden, then they raid them for a violation. Jed has the story, direct from AR15.com.

Destroy someone over a technicality they created. Typical for these mutant apes.

So, according to their standard, would anyone possessing a length of pipe, a hammer and a .22 round be guilty of illegal firearms manufacture and possession? I wouldn't want to try it, but I'll bet you could make that meet the criteria, that is, fire "at least one round," and I'll bet it would be a whole lot safer than taping two receiver halves together (what kind of moron would try that?) Heck, a cartridge in a campfire is all you need.

BATFU, under "Maximum Mike" Sullivan and the "Vote Freedom First President" may be out of control with incompetence, but I think the evidence points toward them being drunk on authority, hungry for more, and steeped in hatred and lust for vengeance.

I think the slavering jackals can just about taste the power boost they'll get with a democrat win in November. I think they're so excited they are peeing down their legs.

Sociopaths like these will not back down unless someone makes them. I've been trying to use "the system" to do so, that is, by giving exposure to their thuggery to create public pressure to rein them in, and also by writing my legislators.

I just got back the standard "As you may be aware, President Bush nominated Michael Sullivan" form letter from that dolt George Voinovich. Yeah, no sh**, Georgie-Boy, that's why I wrote you, you dithering "moderate republican" moron.

Unless more gun owners realize the seriousness of this and get involved, the pressure will simply not be there to make them back off--while at the same time, the squeezing from BATFU will increase.

I fear the efforts of people like me to resolve this through the First Amendment are doomed to fail. Which means I fear a reaction from someone who is tired of being pushed based on frustration and anger.

I fear that will provide a convenient excuse for a crushing response. And I fear that's exactly what the malevolent intelligences directing the meathead thugs are counting on.

What I fear most is that "our side" will decide the right prescription for that is more "pragmatism."

SCROTUS "Conservatives" Screw Us Again

“[T]he five most liberal justices voided the conviction of a Pennsylvania gun owner who was charged with a federal crime for buying a handgun after he had served prison time in Japan for gun crimes there. The three conservative judges dissented.

"Federal law makes it illegal for Americans to own firearms once they have been convicted 'in any court' for a serious gun crime. Bush administration lawyers strongly defended the law and said it covered convictions in foreign courts.”--The Los Angeles Times

In other words, our "pro-gun" president and the "strict constructionists" on the High Court think it's consistent with the vision of The Founders to strip a human being of unalienable rights because they were caught bringing Bibles to China.

It’s curious that justices who have previously endorsed considering international law in domestic decisions, notably Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor, sided with the majority, which correctly observed “[Fo]reign convictions may include convictions for conduct that domestic laws would permit" and acknowledged the potential for "convictions from a legal system that are inconsistent with American understanding of fairness."

It was the “conservatives,” particularly Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, who insisted that the term “any court” means just that.

Hell, Clarence and Tony, you neocon frauds, the Taliban held court all the time.

In the arcane world of the black robes, citations and incantations trump the reason We the People ceded limited authority to them in the first place, mainly to "secure the Blessings of Liberty." No actions by any branch of government may legitimately result in any other end.

To me, the key words in The Times' piece are: "Bush administration lawyers strongly defended the law..."

This isn't the first case where the Bush Justice Department has argued that foreign convictions should stand.

Gun owners put Bush in office. NRA reportedly spent $20 Million convincing them to "vote freedom first." Now this guy wants to change Senate rules to smooth the way for more "conservative" judges so that next time this issue comes up, they'll have the votes to uphold Sharia convictions?

No thanks. This latest outrage has convinced me to defer to Larry Pratt's judgment.

REFERENCES:

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1: “It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person…is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”

The Majority Opinion

The Dissenting Opinion

Guest Editorial: Citizens

by Mike Vanderboegh
20 February 2008

"You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" -- Robert Heinlein

The "Fatigues" of Supporting Freedom

Rasczak: "You." (Pointing the stump of his arm at Johnny Rico.) "Tell me the moral difference, if any, between the citizen and the civilian."

Johnny: "The difference lies in the field of civic virtue. A citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic, of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not."

Rasczak: "The exact words of the text. But do you understand it? Do you believe it?"

Johnny: "Uh, I don't know."

Rasczak: "Of course you don't. I doubt if any of you here would recognize 'civic virtue' if it bit you in the a--." - Starship Troopers, the movie, 1998.

"One can lead a child to knowledge, but one CANNOT make him think." So says Robert Heinlein's History and Moral Philosophy teacher, Mr. Dubois, in his 1959 classic Starship Troopers. Almost 40 years later, the movie adaptation of Heinlein's book changed Dubois' name, but not his lessons. In the fictional future, citizens must be soldiers first to earn their franchise. This is because civilians, especially the liberal social engineers, mucked up civilization so badly that the veterans of the war that the civilians' ineptitude started had to step in and take back the system. On the other hand, the Founders of our very real Republic did not insist that all citizens perform military service as a prerequisite of citizenship. However, they did expect, as Tom Paine said: "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it."

How else shall we interpret the Second Amendment? The people were guaranteed the means of resistance -- that "keep and bear arms" thing which today's "liberals" have such trouble understanding - precisely so that they would be able to "undergo the fatigues of supporting" their own liberties in the face of would-be tyrants. The Founders, being historians and students of human nature, trusted no one with governmental power, even that of their own carefully crafted, exquisitely balanced and inefficient-by-design system. They trusted no one, that is, but the armed citizenry. They understood, as Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson once observed: "It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."

I thought about citizens -- the kind of citizens envisioned by Paine, Jackson and Heinlein -- when I attended the national meeting of the Patriots' Border Alliance in St. Louis this past weekend. The room was packed with just such men and women as the Founders counted upon to maintain their Republic.

The Minutemen

"History, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities. Never was that truer than among that small band of New Mexico Minutemen. They were dirty, unshaven and exhausted on their best day. They didn't look like much more than a small convention of the homeless. But by their presence and their gritty determination they were calling the shots on the border. They were pitiful, they were magnificent. I am proud to have known them and to have served with them. And if we can find more of their kind, we just might be able to save the country." -- Mike Vanderboegh, "The Magnificent Minutemen," October, 2005.

First, I owe the reader some background. Everybody remembers the Minuteman Project, which staged the first border vigil in Arizona in April 2005. Founded by Chris Simcox and Jim Gilchrist, this organization no sooner took to the field than its originators split up over conflicts of ego and substance. Gilchrist's people retained the Minuteman Project name, Simcox founded Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (hereinafter, MCDC). Like several of my friends, I joined MCDC in mid-2005.

There is no doubt that these two men and the organizations they founded changed the entire dynamic of the argument over illegal immigration. The public was tickled pink that someone was embarrassing the Bush Administration into doing something, no matter how small and insincere, about the flood of illegal aliens. Armed men and women - the armed citizenry envisioned by the Founders -- were going to the border to help our vastly outnumbered and hamstrung Border Patrol in defiance of the contrabandistas, the coyotes, the cheap labor exploiters and the upper echelons of their own national government. The President called us "vigilantes." The professional liars-for-money of the Southern Poverty Law Center and the brown racists of the La Raza and Reconquista crowd called us worse. The Border Patrol loved us. The American people loved us. Our positive poll numbers rose to two or three times those of Bush and the Congress. As a result, MCDC grew by leaps and bounds.

But with the rush of volunteers and donations came real questions of how those volunteers were being used and where those donations were going. My old friend Bob Wright of New Mexico, who served as National Training Director for MCDC, was one of those who, while focused on the mission, began having doubts. Ultimately a sizable number of the top and midlevel leadership MCDC volunteers (some 13 of them) were purged by Simcox and his "cult of personality" for having the temerity to insist upon an accounting of MCDC money. Hundreds (perhaps thousands) of others quit in disgust after the purge, some retreating into smaller groups around proven local or state leaders. Others, including Bob Wright, sought a third way: the Patriots' Border Alliance. (See their website: http://patriotsborderalliance.com/)

This "Gang of Thirteen" (as the Simcoxian Koolaid drinkers characterized these incorruptibles) fought to maintain effective border vigil efforts while simultaneously building another national organization that would have what MCDC lacked: open books, accountability of leadership and democratic organization from the bottom up, not the top down. The meeting in St. Louis last weekend achieved those goals, and the Patriot's Border Alliance now has open (albeit slender) finances, a newly elected, fully accountable Board of Directors (including the indomitable Bob Wright as President) and a plan to take the fight over illegal immigration to higher levels of struggle on both old and new battlefields with an eye to forcing the problem back to center stage in this election year.

At the PBA meeting I renewed friendships I had first made in my trip to the border. (See my essay from 2005, "The Magnificent Minutemen.") I also made new friends from among a wide variety of border activists hailing from a rainbow of states: Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Washington State and, of course, Alabama. (I missed seeing Gary Cole of "The Great Northwest", whose physician forbade him to fly. My Alabama scouts reported to Gary out in New Mexico in 2005 where he had served as operations officer. He is a smart, tough, competent patriot -- and very funny. I'd trust my back and my people to his calm, quiet determination any day.)

The Oath and the Flag

So the national meeting of PBA (and all those important little side meetings that always take place at such gatherings of like-minded souls) was in itself well worth the trip from Alabama. But what came after the meeting was an experience out of the "mystic chords of memory." It was billed as a reception, a party. It would be at 7PM sharp they said, don't be late. The whispering beforehand was that no matter how tired you were -- after an all day meeting and the traveling you had done to get there and the traveling you would do the next day to get home -- you needed to be at this party. You would regret it if you missed it, they said. They were right.

The reception was held at the substantial home of Joe Adams, about fifteen minutes from the Staybridge hotel where most of us were lodged (I highly recommend it, by the way, if you're ever in St. Louis). There was food, there was music, there was a substantial bar. And there was more.

There had been an honor guard at the opening of the meeting that morning consisting of Revolutionary War Minutemen reenactors from Living History Reenactors, Inc. (See http://www.livhis.org/ ) The same group, dressed in rifleman's shirts and militia garb of the Founders' day, presented arms as we entered the Adams' manse. After all were within, they did a first-person impression of drill and military usage from 1775. Other female reenactors depicted Betsy Ross and friends sewing the first national colors. Then the room grew absolutely quiet as one militia rifleman stepped forward to swear the original Minute Man's oath:

"We trust in God, that should the state of our affairs require it, we shall be ready to sacrifice our estates and everything dear in life, yea, and life itself, in support of the common cause."

At the end of the ceremony, reenactors advanced to present Joe with the Revolutionary Stars and Stripes: "From the original generation of Minute Men to the Minutemen of today, we present this flag. Bear it with honor."

Goosebumps. I wasn't the only one with wet eyes, nor the only one with a lump in my throat.

You know, I have spent long hours over the past fifteen years trying to make the point with my writing that the Americans of this generation need only look to our ancestors - the Founders - to know how to comport themselves as free men. Yet this simple ceremony, taking but a few minutes, was more eloquent and more powerful than all the gallons of ink I have spilled to bring the Founders' principles back to life with mere, and wholly inadequate, words.

The Immortal Citizen

I looked around the room through misty tears realizing that we were citizens all: citizens who the Founders would have recognized; citizens freely accepting the responsibilities that come with their rights; citizens who stand ready to bear the "fatigues" of supporting their freedom; citizens who froze and baked and suffered and spent themselves broke on the border vigils because they understand that it is their function to keep the government from "falling into error."

We were, in that moment, citizens immortal -- from that time to this to the unseen future -- from hand to hand and soul to soul, eternal. Free Americans. Minutemen. Citizens. We can be killed. We cannot be conquered.

Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com

snort...Honoring...snicker...Freedom...guf-FAW!!!

For her efforts to help more Americans live lives of purpose and dignity, I am proud to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Donna Edna Shalala. (Laughter.)

Oh, stop it, "Vote Freedom First President"! You're killin' me!

[Via Defender]

Common Ground

"We've had our disagreements, everybody knows it," NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told The Associated Press in an interview Tuesday. "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on those. We're not foolish enough to ignore the vast areas of agreement in which John McCain has been a friend to gun owners."

That must be why he is requiring them to disarm to show fealty during the perversely-named "Celebration of American Values" at the annual meeting. And I'm waiting for the first apologist to come in here with a straight face and tell me that's not his choice and not totally within the control of his orders and actions. What's his security detail gonna do--arrest him?

Guess what, gun owners--we don't have a horse in this race. You can rationalize otherwise ad nauseum and that won't change. The reason we don't have a choice is because we have allowed ourselves to be used for years and never insisted on one. The Republicans are counting on gun owners being so desperate and afraid they can present us with anything, and Wayne & Co. will help gussy it up. They've been prepping us to swallow this for some months now.

Oh, but McCain voted against the "assault weapons" ban . True, but more recently than that, he told the Los Angeles Times he "Supports ban on certain assault weapons...McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details."

The AP also reported "McCain favors outlawing cheaply made handguns called Saturday night specials, and favors mandating safety locks on certain guns. He said he is intrigued by new technology that electronically identifies a person handling a gun, allowing only the owner to fire it. McCain rallied Senate Republicans behind a Democratic measure requiring background checks at gun shows."

Vote for McCain and you'll be voting for "The Vote Freedom First President" on steroids. Just look at what's happening now, with Bush appointee "Pro-Gun" Mukasey running DoJ, and Bush/Kennedy/Kerry nominee "Maximum Mike" running BATFU. Yesterday's Olofson outrage happened on his "the buck stops here" watch. They're not even masking the contempt any more. They know they can rely on gun owner Judenrat "leadership" to take whatever they slop on the dish and serve it up to the membership as good for them.

And they're betting you will eat it.

UPDATE: FatWhiteMan has a copy of the Celebration of Amerikan Values disarmament edict email.

And I forgot to add: NRA could always say "No dice," too, if they wanted to. Go speak somewhere else--maybe to La Raza. That'd not only make headlines, the egg on his face would be priceless.

Courageous "gun rights leaders" would. If you think it through, he needs us worse than we need him--unless you're one of those who say we're going to "lose our gun rights," that is, surrender them with a whimper.

In the Spirit of Bipartisanship

From Sherrod Brown:

Thank you for expressing support for an amendment to S.2483, the National Forests, Parks, Public Land, and Reclamation Projects Authorization Act, that would allow loaded firearms in United Stated National Parks.

Passing legislation that allows states to override federal jurisdiction over carrying firearms in federal parks sets a precedent that implies it may be appropriate for the federal government to override state jurisdiction over other gun carrying laws. I do not think it is appropriate for Congress to override the separate jurisdictions of state and federal government. As I consider the implications of promoting state jurisdiction over gun carrying laws in federal parks, I will keep the views expressed in your letter in mind.

Hmmm:

...implies it may be appropriate for the federal government to override state jurisdiction over other gun carrying laws...

Well, let's see:

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now consider William Rawle, whose "View of the Constitution" was the constitutional law text used at Harvard and Dartmouth until the mid-19th century. George Washington wanted Rawle to be the first Attorney General.

His take on the 2nd Amendment:

No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under a general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any pursuit of an inordinate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

So yeah, no sh**, Sherrod.

But don't be too hard on him. In the spirit of "bipartisanship," democrat Brown is simply supporting the position of our republican "Vote Freedom First President."

I wonder if "this administration" feels the same way about the rest of the Bill of Rights?

And they say there are no stupid questions.

Proof That Bloomberg's Not "Anti-Gun"

Machine Gun-Toting Officers To Patrol NYC Subway...

"It's going to make me feel safer, much safer, yes it will."

Now hold on just a dang minute here.

I thought the purpose of these "bullet hoses" was to kill as many people as quickly as possible. How the hell are you going to deploy them in a crowded subway station, or sardine-packed subway car, with requisite precision and without massive "friendly fire collateral damage"?

And what's with names like "Hercules teams"? Kind of a comic book action hero mindset there, don't you think? In an elite "we have huge balls" 'roid rage kind of way. Just what we need more of for New York "Only Ones."

$151 million from Homeland Security? Bender's outfit? I thought I felt the "Vote Freedom First President's" touch on this.

I know "they hate us because we're free" and all, but I'm starting to wonder just how much "freer" the government intends to make us.

What with Bloomberg's and Ray Kelly's demonstrable love of high tech firepower, I don't suppose trusting the true "first responders" is an option...?

John Kerry's Friend

John Kerry, who has an F rating from the NRA and an F rating from GOA, is urging Idaho Senators to drop their hold on his friend Michael Sullivan's confirmation as director of the ATF.

So Kerry's for him, as is Ted Kennedy and Mr. Vote Freedom First himself--you know, the guy gun owners put over the top in the last two elections.

If "Maximum Mike" is confirmed, expect more of the same abuse.

This is bigger than who heads BATFU. The message to Republicans needs to be loud and clear. The GOP keep expecting us to put up with their betrayals, and they're offering us front runners with a history of doing just that. If they want to lose really big in '08, just keep it up.

In the mean time, as a token gesture of gratitude for past support and good will for the future, we need to make it known we expect them to oppose this nomination.

Of course, if it's just a few of us saying this, it will amount to nothing. You have written your senators, right? (I eagerly await the first late-comer to give the "but they're Democrats" excuse...click this link to see how to address that)

And by the way--how come our self-proclaimed leaders from Fairfax are nowhere near the fray, and purposefully quiet about the whole thing?

A Creed Not Subject to Debate

Where is the scientific, historic or empirical evidence that the greater the racial, ethnic, cultural and religious diversity of a nation, the stronger it becomes? [More]

The paradox of "progressivism" is that its goal is to transform the New World into the Old.

I first heard the absurd "Our diversity is our strength" assurance from that idiot tool of Swamp interests, the "Vote Freedom First President."

Opposite Day...

Ignorance is Strength...

Guest Column: The Election and the Aftermath‏

By Peter G

Barack Obama won the election fair and square. That means that not only is he *the* President, he is *my* President. No, I didn't vote for him, nor did I contribute one red cent to his campaign. I am, first and foremost an American and a passionate believer in our Constitution, and as such, I am duty bound to embrace him as my President. No, I don't agree with his positions on most things, and I believe that so far as the Second Amendment is concerned he's a bald-faced liar.

In 1962, as a five year-old riding in the back seat of my parent's 1958 Mercury traveling through Chattanooga, I saw the Freedom Marchers. I also saw them being fire hosed. That during my lifetime we as a country elected a black man to our highest office redeems my hope in the promise that our Founders envisioned. That we might finally be getting over this self-inflicted madness over skin color also gives me hope for the future of our Republic.

Nevertheless, it's going to be rough going for at least the next two years, and the mid-term elections of 2010 will only make things less bad. President-elect Obama is more intelligent than Jimmy Carter, and is more disciplined than Bill Clinton, so prepare yourselves for two terms of President Obama. And please remember also that the President doesn't make laws, he can merely sign or veto them. The real problem resides at the other end of Constitution Avenue, with Congress. As well, let us not forget the old saw about the decisions being made by those who show up. Barack Obama showed up, he built up a network of supporters, raised the money, and did all the things necessary to win the election. Are there better choices out there? Sure there are, but they didn't show up, or they didn't make it to the end. That's our system, and if one is truly serious about being a Citizen, one must accept the unwanted results along with those that one might agree with.

For my part, I will continue doing what I have been doing. This past Monday, I bought another rifle, more ammunition, a scope, and some spare parts for one of my Mausers. Should the worst forecasts of a Democratically dominated Federal Government come true, I will resist those results as a free man. This is not a call to revolution, far from it. It is my sincere wish to be left alone to live my life as best I might. However, should my 'betters' in DC decide to violate my Constitutional Rights, I will fight until they kill me. I can do no less, not while I self-identify as an American. I will never fire the first shot, but shoot I will if attacked.

I will continue to network with my like-minded e-friends, and will continue to send articles and notes of interest to David Codrea, Paul Grant, Jeffersonian, and Mike Vanderboegh, amongst others. Gunfire is the last resort, not the first, and if I can protect my freedom and country by a profligate expenditure of pixels and electrons, then I'll happily write that check to the electric company and consider it a bargain.

This has been quite a journey: it all started because I wanted an 1858 Remington and didn't want to pay list price, so I hit Google. One link led to another, I started reading and then thinking about what it is to be a Citizen, what the responsibilities entail, and not just the benefits. I don't regret the time nor the effort. If nothing else, it has kept me off the streets and out of the arms of strange women.

In closing, Ladies and Germs, the immediate future is pretty bleak. However, it's not permanent, nor is it unchangeable. I could write more, but I need to get off my overpadded behind and put some miles on the bike. Physical conditioning is just as important as the mental kind.

III

Elephant Fumes

National Republicans are furious with the National Rifle Association, their natural ally, for endorsing 58 incumbent Democrats who support gun rights. And with Republicans aiming to win control of the House, some are promising retribution for the NRA next year. [More]

I'm the first one to question NRA endorsements of Democrats as being incompatible with "voting freedom first." But when the GOP offers us merde like Mark Kirk, Dan Coats, et al, they can just go to hell.

Go ahead and fume, m...........s.  You really want to talk about promising retribution?

We may not be able to win every election, but we damn sure have the numbers to ensure they'll lose some if they don't toe the line.  But for those timid souls who so want to believe that "lesser of two evils" wishful thinking...

How YOU Can Be a Part of History

I first told you about Academics for the Second Amendment here.

They need financial help to fund their legal work on behalf of Heller. As we've just seen over the weekend, the novel betrayal by the "Vote Freedom First President" has made the need for compelling scholarship even more critical.

The work these men are doing on our behalf can be all consuming--they are devoting their time, their labor and their expertise to help bring us the best outcome possible.

We can continue to stand by as spectators, or we can do something to pitch in. Please help out by sending a donation and by spreading the word.

Wouldn't it be nice if our side prevails to know that you helped make it happen? Wouldn't it be pathetic if we lose and you know you didn't?

To reiterate who these guys are and their qualifications:

David T. Hardy
Clayton Cramer
Joseph E. Olson

[Via Greg L]

Ron Paul on the DC Gun Ban

The DC gun ban is no joke, and the legal challenges to the ban are not simply academic exercises. People's lives and safety are at stake.

Some readers have sent me the above title link outlining Dr. Paul's position on the DC gun ban.

Yes, it's absolutely right on and what I would expect, but it's an old post and not what I'm talking about:

I think it's important that he address the "Vote Freedom First President's" DoJ brief, give his opinion of that, and tell what he would do if he were in charge.

Fred has. At least the first part.

That question should be put to all candidates representing themselves to gun owners as our pals, but that won't happen as long as such expectations are confined to lowly blogs...

"Domestic Enemies"--An Interview With Matthew Bracken

I want my biases out on the table before I start this: It's no secret I'm a big fan of Matthew Bracken's first book, Enemies Foreign and Domestic, and said as much in my review last year.

I haven't read Matt's sequel, Domestic Enemies: The Reconquista. I've just started it, but admit I'm caught up in what I've read so far. Also, Jeff John at GUNS Magazine just gave me the green light to write a review for the magazine.



As I've said in prior announcments, Matt is going to be checking in today from time to time and answering questions from WarOnGuns visitors as time permits. If you have a question you'd like to ask him, just post a comment at the end of the interview.

That's about all the introduction we need. Let's jump right into the interview.

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

DC: Without giving any spoilers, set the story up for me. How does Reconquista tie in with EFAD, and where do you take it from there?

MB: Reconquista begins five years after the end of EFAD, with a leading character from the first book in a detention camp for suspected terrorists. That is the only character from the first book who is carried over. The five year time period allows the reader to experience a significant deterioration of the state of freedom in America. The plot takes that character on a journey across the Southwest, which is then in the opening stages of a low-intensity civil war.

DC: Your sequel speaks to a very specific kind of subversion by a very specific demographic. What do you say to people who are concerned about xenophobic or racial implications? Can a person of Mexican ancestry enjoy this book and agree with its sentiments? How about a person with a libertarian “open borders” philosophy?

MB: I dismiss any charges of xenophobia or other racial implications out of hand. You either believe in the Constitution and the sovereign borders of the USA, or you don't. Millions of illegal aliens who have invaded the USA believe that the Southwest was "stolen" from Mexico, and that they have the right to take it back. This is totally bogus "junk history" which I would be happy to detail at any level. There are also millions of Americans of Hispanic descent who are loyal citizens who hold the Constitution and our sovereign borders dear. Many of the positive protagonists in Reconquista fit that description. The racists in this debate belong to groups like "La Raza," which are racist organizations on their face. As far as "open borders libertarians," I hope and trust that they will hate this book like the devil hates holy water. I consider them traitors and Quislings, and I despise them. I am unashamedly an American who believes in the rule of law, the Constitution, and defending America's sovereign borders.

DC: Apathy seems to be rampant among gun owners, with only a small percentage involved in basic activism—out of 80 million estimated gun owners, something like 5% are even NRA members, and harder core groups, like GOA and JPFO attract significantly fewer members. Do you believe that Americans who won’t do the easy things—petitioning, rewarding and punishing candidates, lending financial support to myriad efforts toward peaceful redress of grievances—would take extreme risks, put their lives, fortunes and sacred honor on the line, and actually take up arms to reclaim their Republic? If so, why?

MB: Most Americans will not even sign an on-line petition, much less put their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on the line to save their Republic. Unfortunately they are too busy earning a living and paying their bills and their taxes to worry much about what will become of the nation they will hand over to their children. I believe that the USA is on the road to becoming a third world nation, and I feel great sorrow for our children. After 225 years we have finally managed to debase and squander our national legacy, and our children may well spit on our graves for our apathy and self-absorption.

DC: What has the response of gun owners been to this and your previous book? What kind of numbers do you need to get major publishing houses to set aside their prejudices and see the profit potential in introducing this book to the same mass audiences they appeal to with novelists like Tom Clancy?

MB: The 6,500 gun owners who have read EFAD love it and many of them tell me that it's the most important book they have read in many years. I hear that copies are passed from person to person and that is gratifying. It's extremely difficult for a no-name first-time-author to crack through the left-tilting PC-ridden world of mainstream New York publishing, which is why I opted to self-publish. The numbers I've sold via the internet, with no promotional budget, have finally gotten some national publishing attention. However, I don't hold out much hope for a serious publishing contract unless lightning strikes, the way it did for Tom Clancy.

A short anecdote: around 1980 or so, my father was a member of the Navy League in Baltimore, and Tom Clancy was an insurance salesman who had just written a book called The Hunt For Red October. Incidentally, Clancy graduated from the same high school in Maryland that I attended, ten years ahead of me. Clancy, who had no "real" publishing contract, was giving free lectures and selling his book off of tables. (Clancy had managed to obtain a small print run from the Naval Institute Press, which specializes in reprints of obscure naval histories.) At a Navy League function, my father bought a signed copy from the totally unknown author. Later, through a stroke of luck and some superb "guerrilla marketing," a copy of The Hunt For Red October was given to Ronald Reagan, who was photographed carrying it, and the rest is publishing history. (We still have our own signed first edition "Naval Institute Press" copy of Red October, but my dad had the habit of marking books up with underlining and marginalia, so it's probably worthless.)

However, in my case, I see no hope at all that our current President would be caught dead carrying Reconquista, which is a strong indictment against his open borders and pro-amnesty positions. In my case, I'll have to continue to grind out my own promotion via word of mouth, one reader at a time. The best promotion for my books are my books, but this type of promotion takes a long time.

DC: How about the “gun rights groups”? Did any support EFAD with reviews/recommendations, and have any shown an interest in promoting Reconquista? And same basic question—what kind of acknowledgment are you getting from talk radio programs, gun magazines, other media?

MB: Some small state-level gun rights groups have given me kudos, but the national groups such as the NRA have never indicated that they even received, much less read, the copies of EFAD that I sent to their officers with very nice letters. I'm not sure why this is, but that is their problem. I have a few theories.

A few gun magazines have carried reviews of EFAD for which I'm grateful, particularly GUNS magazine, which ran your review.

DC: Are you conducting your own publicity campaign? What about book-signing appearances at gun shows, talks at gun clubs, etc.?

MB: For Reconquista, I'm sending out books in clear poly mailers to a fairly large number of radio hosts and producers, mainly across the Southwest where the illegal alien invasion is a burning issue. I just moved from San Diego, and I can tell you that gun rights never rose above about "topic nineteen" on the list of talk radio subjects, but the alien invasion occupies more than half of every talk radio hour in the Southwest. Reconquista might get some traction on talk radio, even if I have to literally throw copies over the transom.

As far as gun shows, I've been fortunate to be invited to the SHOT Show the last few years by Kasey Beltz of Accu-Shot, who has been a big supporter ever since he read an early edition of EFAD. Just attending the SHOT Show has been a tremendous education. It is nice to be greeted at the SHOT Show by many gun-writers and shooters who are "names" in the industry. That has been very gratifying. I really haven't done book-signing appearances other than at the SHOT Show.

DC: I’ve read some comments that show you have a core of enthusiastic readers who obviously love your work. What can your fans do to help promote your book and get it before a wider audience?

MB: I have postcard-sized reproductions of the covers of both of my books, which folks can post on the bulletin boards of their local shooting clubs and so on. The cover cards are free for the asking through my website. It also wouldn't hurt if either of my books were mentioned on local talk radio, that's for sure. I've had maybe a dozen radio interviews from Tucson to Fairbanks discussing gun rights, and I'm told I'm a good guest. I think talk radio might lead to a breakout, especially concerning the topicality of Reconquista. But whether it does or not, I'm in this for the long haul. I'm a full-time writer now, and eventually I'll break through in a big way. I think my books convey important messages that need to be heard by millions of Americans, about the dangers facing our nation in the very near term.

DC: Is this a trilogy? Will we see Foreign Enemies in the next year or two?

MB: This is a trilogy, and the third book will be called Foreign Enemies. It will take place in an America that is shattered and experiencing a terrible economic depression and social disintegration. I would not put a time frame on when it will be finished. I just hope the national economy in two years is such that it will support endeavors like writing and selling novels.

Matt Bracken
Florida

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

Please submit questions below by clicking on the "Comments" link. Mr. Bracken may not be able to get to all of them, but let's enjoy this opportunity as long as it presents itself. Also, if you haven't yet done so, please let your friends know about this interview so they can participate.

Dial 911 and...

OK, Bradys--now what?

[Via Paul W. Davis]

UPDATE: The link has been deactivated because the weather advisory is no longer in effect. Here is the text that had appeared there:

Civil Emergency Message
OKC037-113-143-111500-

BULLETIN - EAS ACTIVATION REQUESTED
CIVIL EMERGENCY MESSAGE
RELAYED BY NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE TULSA OK
247 PM CST MON DEC 10 2007

THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE IS TRANSMITTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE TULSA
AREA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.

SOME INTERSECTIONS MAY NOT YET HAVE TEMPORARY FOUR WAY STOP SIGNS.

CALL 911 FOR LIFE THREATENING EMERGENCIES ONLY. PLEASE DO NOT HANG
UP IF YOU CALL, YOUR CALL WILL BE ANSWERED.

THE TULSA POLICE DEPARTMENT IS ON OPERATION SLICK STREETS. IF YOU
HAVE A NON INJURY ACCIDENT, DO NOT CALL 911. THE POLICE WILL NOT RESPOND.

ALL HOSPITALS EXCEPT THE OSU MEDICAL CENTER AND HILLCREST MEDICAL
CENTER ARE OPERATING ON BACK UP POWER. AEP-PSO HAS PRIORITIZED
RESTORING POWER TO HOSPITALS FIRST.

IT COULD TAKE SEVERAL DAYS FOR THE POWER TO BE RESTORED TO ALL
HOMES.

DO NOT SEEK SHELTER FROM THE COLD AT AREA HOSPITALS.

SEEK SHELTER AT THE SALVATION ARMY DAY CENTER...102 NORTH
DENVER...THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH...403 SOUTH CINCINNATI...THE
COLLINSVILLE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH...1301 WEST MAIN...THE OLIVETTE
BAPTIST CHURCH IN SAND SPRINGS...155 NORTH 65TH WEST AVENUE...THE
NEW BEGINNINGS BAPTIST CHURCH IN BIXBY...4101 EAST 151ST STREET...THE
FREEDOM BAPTIST CHURCH IN OWASSO...96TH STREET NORTH AND 177TH EAST
AVENUE...AND THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH IN SAPULPA...200 SOUTH ELM.

CITIZENS CAN CALL THE MAYORS ACTION LINE AT 596-2100. TO REPORT
DOWNED POWER LINES CALL 888-218-3919.

TO REQUEST TULSA TRANSIT LIFT SERVICE, CALL 625-5722.

A Really Wrong Turn

A U.S. soldier being held by Mexican authorities said he accidentally drove across the border with guns, knives and ammunition while looking for a place to park.

Congratulations, Spc. Torres.

"The Vote Freedom First President" and his fawning cronies say a foreign conviction should put you on their prohibited persons list.

Aren't you glad you risked your life overseas to defend American "freedom"?

Hey, if you're not with us, you're against us!