One Man's Impact

Browning: One Man's Impac
tWritten by Charles Scaliger
August 2009

On a particular fall day in 1889, the members of the Ogden Rifle Club of Ogden, Utah, were out in force. The men were target shooting, but doubtless found the brilliant fall colors of aspens and oaks on the high peaks of the Wasatch Range a distraction.

Enticing too were the flocks of migratory waterfowl wheeling overhead and grouse calling in the brush. But all rifles that day were trained on paper targets, although one of the competitors, an unusually tall man with stern but handsome features, was having trouble concentrating on hitting the mark. As his good friend Will Wright took a shot with his rifle, the taller man noticed how a clump of desert weeds in front of the rifle was knocked back by the blast from the gun.

It was not the first time the tall man or any of the spectators had seen such an event; the big bore rifles fashionable on the Western frontier always produced a formidable muzzle blast. But the tall man, who was, at age 34, already an accomplished gunsmith and firearms manufacturer, found himself for the first time taking notice of the muzzle blast and pondering what it meant. Every discharge of a gun released a tremendous amount of energy, much of which was dissipated in the blast out of the muzzle. Now the tall man found himself wondering whether that burst of energy could somehow be put to use.

Unable to concentrate any longer on the competitive shoot, the man called his two brothers and left the shoot. Asked for an explanation, he said only, “An idea hit me — biggest one I ever had.”

On the way back to town, the tall man began thinking aloud, explaining to his two brothers his belief that the energy from the muzzle blast might be harnessed somehow. “It might even be possible to make a fully automatic gun,” he surmised, “one that would keep firing as long as you had ammunition.”

To a casual listener in the late 19th century, such an idea would probably have seemed preposterous, even though rapid-fire weapons were no novelty; the French and Belgians had deployed the first mitrailleuse in the 1850s, and the American Civil War saw the deployment of the famous Gatling gun. These guns, along with the Gardener gun developed in the 1870s, were all operated by hand cranks, and were not capable of true automatic fire. The Maxim gun, the first true automatic weapon, which used recoil force to cycle the gun, was developed in 1884, and could fire roughly 600 rounds per minute. The gun was deployed to devastating effect by British forces in colonial Africa.

But the idea of a gas-operated automatic weapon was an altogether revolutionary idea and its originator, unassuming Utah gun-maker John Moses Browning, the most creative inventive genius ever to apply his talents to the creation of firearms.

Pedigree
Browning had a gun-maker’s pedigree. His father, Jonathan Browning, grew up in frontier Tennessee and made a living repairing and building firearms on his own account. He eventually settled in Quincy, Illinois, on the Mississippi River, at a fateful time in that state’s history: 40 miles upstream, an obscure and much-reviled new religious sect, the Mormons, were building a settlement.

One day a Mormon stopped by Jonathan’s shop, and began telling the Tennessee gunsmith about the new religion. Before long, Jonathan and his wife converted and moved north to Nauvoo, the Mormon settlement, where Jonathan’s gunsmithing skills soon proved invaluable to the Mormon settlers. When the Mormons were driven from Illinois and forced to move westward, Jonathan went along, keeping the pioneers’ guns in good repair for the arduous and dangerous trek across the high plains to the valley of the Great Salt Lake. Jonathan and his family settled in Ogden, 40 miles north of Salt Lake City, and soon built a prosperous gun smithy.

John Moses Browning grew up in sparsely settled 19th-century Utah, when Indians still came regularly to the town looking for food or to trade with the Mormons. The arrival of the railroad in Ogden transformed that tiny settlement into something of a hub, bringing with it increased business for Jonathan Browning and his sons, who all worked in the family business.

Although all of Jonathan’s sons were hard workers and able gunsmiths, John Moses stood out from a very early age. When he was 10, John constructed his first gun using only a broken flintlock barrel, a piece of wood, and some wire and scrap tin. Crude though the weapon was, it sufficed to shoot three prairie chickens with a single shot.

Proud of his accomplishment, young John doubtless expected lavish praise from his father. Instead, the elder Browning, upon examining the firearm, shook his head and said, “John Mose, you’re going on eleven. Can’t you make a better gun than that?”

Abashed, John took apart the firearm, reflecting as he did on his father’s gentle rebuke. Had he taken a little more time and care, he could have made a much better weapon. The rest of his life was eloquent testimony that his father was right. John Moses Browning, son of a Utah Mormon pioneer, became the most prolific firearms inventor the world has ever known, designing dozens of new guns, from single-shot rifles to anti-aircraft cannons, and accounting for more than 100 patents.

Manufacturer to Inventor
His career as an inventor began modestly enough. With his brothers, John took over his father’s gun shop, enlarging and expanding the business. In 1878, when he was 23 years old, John invented his first marketable gun, a single shot rifle which quickly became one of the most popular firearms in the intermountain West. By the early 1880s, the Browning brothers had produced roughly 600 of the meticulously crafted rifles. The income from Browning’s invention was enough to enable him and his brothers to slowly expand their Ogden business, but conferred neither fame nor fortune.

All of that was to change, however, when a salesman for the Winchester Repeating Arms Company happened across a rifle the likes of which he had not seen before. The name and place of the manufacturer, “Browning Bros. Ogden, Utah USA,” were stamped on the barrel. The salesman, knowing that his bosses were always interested in potential competitors, purchased the weapon for 15 dollars and sent it to the Winchester factory in New Haven, Connecticut.

The management at Winchester, who had neither heard of Browning Bros. nor ever seen a single-shot rifle of such high quality, was indeed interested. The rifle’s serial number, 463, indicated that hundreds of the guns had already been made, a significant new competitor from a completely unexpected quarter.

T. G. Bennett, vice president and general manager of Winchester, boarded the westbound train within a week of receiving the mysterious new rifle, determined to find its maker and, if possible, purchase the rights for its manufacture.

The imperious, no-nonsense Bennett must have cut quite a figure in the dusty streets of Ogden in 1883, the well-heeled, professionally attired Easterner on the rough and ready streets of a young western railroad town. He lost no time locating the Browning Brothers gun shop on Ogden’s Main Street, where, despite his bewilderment at the youth of John and his brothers, he offered to buy rights to the exclusive manufacture of John’s gun.

It was the great turning point in John’s life, a moment that, though neither Bennett nor Browning could possibly have foreseen it, would prove pivotal in the military history of the modern age. For John Moses Browning, despite the success of his business, was an inventor, not a manufacturer, at heart. He confessed to Bennett that he already had the details for a new rifle — a repeater that could handle large cartridges, something none of the repeating rifles then made could do — fully fleshed out in his mind. If Winchester were amenable, he would be happy to work on that gun as well.

Bennett, with a successful businessman’s instinct for superior talent, paid John $8,000 for the rights to the single shot rifle, and an alliance that lasted 19 years was born. True to his word, John soon developed a working model of what would become the Winchester Model 1886 Lever Action Repeating Rifle. After securing a patent, John traveled to New Haven with his brother Matt to give Winchester the right of first refusal. Bennett was delighted with the gun and purchased the rights to it for an undisclosed but (for the day) very substantial sum — probably in the realm of $50,000 dollars. By now thoroughly convinced of the young Utahn’s genius, Bennett asked John to design a lever-action repeating shotgun for Winchester — which Browning had ready a mere eight months later. The Model 87 repeating shotgun, though not the first repeating shotgun ever produced, was the first truly successful one.

The next two years, from 1884 to 1886, were a time of astonishing creative output, to the mutual benefit of John Moses Browning and Winchester. During that brief span, John developed and Winchester purchased from him no fewer than 11 different guns. Although not all of John’s firearms were put into production — Winchester thought highly enough of his abilities as an inventor that it purchased all of John’s patents to prevent any of them from going to competitors — the Browning-designed rifles and shotguns that were produced utterly revolutionized American sporting arms.

Despite the popularity of his inventions, however, John Moses Browning — unlike celebrity inventors of comparable genius like Thomas Edison — remained relatively unknown outside the rarefied world of gun manufacturing. His name was not attached to any of the new Winchester arms, which was probably how the modest westerner preferred it.

John Moses Browning, like the rest of his family, was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. In those days, the Mormon Church frequently called older married men on missions, and in early 1887, at age 32, it was John’s turn. He was called away from wife, children, and gun inventing to serve a two-year mission in Georgia. Once during his mission, he and his companion stopped to visit a sporting goods store that had on display a brand new Winchester 87 repeating shotgun. The proprietor was surprised at how facilely the besuited out-of-towner handled the weapon and operated the action. When the proprietor observed that John obviously knew how to handle the gun, John’s companion replied, “He ought to. He invented it.”

Upon returning from his mission in early 1889, John Browning resumed his firearms inventing with undiminished zeal. He continued to develop new hunting rifles for Winchester into the 1890s, but it was the episode at the Ogden Rifle Club, when John noticed the energy from the muzzle blast in a new light, that directed his genius in a new direction, one that would have life-or-death consequences for countless millions: the development of military arms.

Gas-operated Guns
By the morning following his initial burst of inspiration, John had worked out a design for the first gas-operated automatic weapon of any kind, and by late afternoon of that same day, he and his brothers had the first crude model assembled. After a number of refinements in the design, Browning was ready to tell Colt — unlike Winchester a manufacturer of military guns — about his new invention. He wrote the Colt Company in November 1890:

Dear Sirs,
We have just completed our new Automatic Machine Gun & thought we would write to you to see if you are interested in that kind of gun. We have been at work on this gun for some time & have got it in good shape.... The one we have just completed shoots the 45 Gov’t charge about 6 times per second and with the mount weighs about 40#. It is entirely automatic and can be made as cheaply as a common sporting rifle. If you are interested in this kind of gun we would be pleased to show you what it is & how it works as we are intending to take it down your way before long.

Colt’s response was cordial but guarded; the Gatling gun had not been terribly profitable, but they were willing to have a look at the new machine gun if John were ever in the Hartford area. A few weeks later, John and Matt traveled to Hartford with their new invention. They were received warmly by Colt officials who were only too keenly aware of Browning’s reputation with Winchester. John Hall, the president of Colt, was extremely cordial and happy to arrange for the Browning brothers to demonstrate their new weapon on the company firing range. The machine gun, mount, and four 50-round belts loaded with .45/70 caliber rounds were set up, and the odd-looking machine gun prototype fired all two hundred rounds in a few seconds without a single misfire. Colt officials were suitably impressed, but still skeptical that such a weapon could be manufactured and marketed profitably. John offered to return to test fire the gun for military observers anytime Colt was interested.

A few months later, Hall contacted the Brownings with important news: the Navy was interesting in seeing the new machine gun, but insisted on a demonstration of three minutes of continuous fire. With a firing rate of about 600 rounds per minute, Browning’s machine gun would have to fire 1,800 rounds without a hitch. The technical challenges of such a demonstration included preventing the barrel from overheating and getting two thousand rounds stitched into the canvas belts that fed the gun. According to Hall’s letter, the Navy wasn’t expecting perfection, but was interested in the principle of the new gas-powered gun. John Browning, however, would settle for nothing less than perfection. He toiled away with his gun, including the design of the belt, until he was convinced it would put on a good show. Then he took the train back to Hartford.

The second test was much more formal, with one of the Navy officers timing the affair with a stopwatch. John gave the spectators cotton wads for earplugs, loaded the gun, and pressed the trigger.

The machine gun roared for 20 seconds, churning efficiently through the first 200 cartridges. John clipped on the second belt and continued firing. As hundreds of spent cartridges piled up on the floor, the barrel of the gun turned blue, then red. A mist of superheated, near-microscopic lead particles stung John’s skin, but he continued firing. When the gun fell silent after three minutes and 1,800 rounds of continuous firing, the witnesses applauded loudly, shaking John’s hand and slapping his back. The revolutionary machine gun had performed perfectly.

It was a few years before what became the Colt Model 1895 Automatic Machine Gun went into production, but the weapon proved its worth many times over in the Spanish-American War at the end of the decade. In the years that followed, Browning continued to develop new machine guns of different calibers and using both water and air as cooling agents, but the basic gas operating mechanism, possibly his greatest single invention, became and remains the standard for machine guns.

Browning also developed other novel fast-shooting pistols and rifles. By the mid-1890s, he had developed the first of many semiautomatic pistols, for which the rights were sold to Colt. His first semiautomatic pistol to go into production in America, the Model 1900 .38 caliber Colt, was the first semiautomatic pistol to be commercially produced in the United States. Its signature trait, and also a Browning invention, was the slide, whereby the barrel covering slid back with each firing to eject the spent cartridge and cycle a new round into the chamber. This invention, too, has proven its worth many times over; almost all modern semiautomatic pistols use the slide design. Browning’s best-known pistol, the .45 caliber Colt 1911, is one of the most popular handguns ever made, both among civilian and military users, and has spawned countless imitators.

Browning also built the first autoloading shotgun in the late 1890s, securing a patent in 1900. Unfortunately, Bennett and Winchester were not impressed with Browning’s latest invention. Apparently convinced that the sporting public would continue to prefer pump, double-barrel, and single-shot shotguns, the management at Winchester, for the first time since their association with Browning, dragged their heels, reluctant to make a commitment to purchase the weapon. Exasperated, Browning finally went to New Haven and, after an abrupt exchange with Bennett, collected the gun and departed, never to work with Winchester again.

Browning then took his gun to Remington, whose president, Marcellus Hartley, had expressed great interest in the new weapon. But in a drastic turn of events, Hartley died of a heart attack while Browning and his new shotgun were waiting in the company foyer.

Disappointed but undeterred, Browning decided to try the Europeans. Fabrique Nationale d’Armes de Guerre, Europe’s most storied arms maker, whose sprawling manufactory dominated the Belgian city of Liege, had already shown interest in Browning and was the very first producer of a Browning-designed semiautomatic pistol, the Model 1900 .32 Caliber, which began production for all markets outside the United States in 1899.

The gun designer from Utah sailed for Europe in February 1902 for the first of what was to be many trips. The Europeans at Fabrique Nationale gave him a rapturous reception; Browning’s semiautomatic pistol was proving a monumental success, and the Europeans were anxious for any new ideas from the man they eventually nicknamed “Le Maître” — “The Master.” By March, Browning and FN had hammered out an agreement to manufacture the new semiautomatic shotgun, which quickly proved as popular as all of Browning’s other inventions.

Waging War Intellectually
The outbreak of World War I was the great crisis of Browning’s lifetime. The gun that started it all — a .32 Caliber FN Model 1900 semiautomatic pistol wielded by the Serbian assassin Gavrilo Princip — was a Browning invention. American entry into the war in 1917 created a demand for more effective automatic weapons. America, the country that had given the world the gas-operated machine gun, found itself woefully undersupplied, the 1,100 machine guns actually available to the U.S. military consisting entirely of obsolescent models like the 1895 Colt and the 1904 Maxim. Germany, by contrast, already fielded tens of thousands of more-modern machine guns.

From their inception, machine guns, with their massive magazines, turrets, and cooling systems, were little more mobile than cannons. From aircraft, pillboxes, and the decks of ships they could take a terrible toll, but the U.S. military wanted something more: the capacity for “walking fire,” whereby soldiers with easily portable automatic weapons could advance on an enemy while spraying them with a heavy suppressing fire. Yet again, John Moses Browning rose to the occasion, producing for an exhibition in February 1917 the Browning Automatic Rifle or B.A.R. The device fired a 20-round clip of .30/06 caliber bullets, could be set for either single shot or automatic fire, and, weighing a mere 17 pounds, could be comfortably carried and fired from the hip or shoulder. Like so many Browning designs, the B.A.R. was a marvel of simplicity, consisting of 70 pieces that could be taken apart completely and reassembled in less than a minute.

The U.S. military quickly adopted the B.A.R. for all branches of service, and the gun was a battlefield staple for decades to come, one of two Browning guns (the 1911 Colt .45 was the other) to become a standard military issue.

The U.S. government also required a new machine gun equal to the rigors of prolonged trench warfare. Here, too, Browning was happy to oblige his country. In April 1917, Browning brought a newly designed .30 caliber machine gun to the Springfield Armory where government weapons were tested, and proceeded to fire 20,000 rounds without a single malfunction. After a brief pause, Browning repeated the feat, expending a total of 40,000 rounds at a rate of 600 rounds per minute without a jam or any other mechanical problem. Browning’s astounding demonstration set a new benchmark for machine gun performance, and persuaded the government to make him an offer for full manufacturing rights for the machine gun, automatic rifle, and .45 semiautomatic pistol for the duration of the war.

A government representative made the offer to John and his brother Matt, admitting to them that the amount the government could tender was “only a fraction of what you would receive from royalties on orders already booked, and it may not be acceptable.” The amount the government was offering — $750,000 — was no mean sum, but only a fraction of the more than $10 million John could have made on the aforementioned royalties.

Nevertheless, John Browning did not hesitate. “Major, if that suits Uncle Sam, it’s all right with me.” After the government official left, Matt reminded his brother how much money he stood to lose by accepting the government’s first offer. John answered simply, “Yes, and if we were fifteen or twenty years younger, we’d be over there in the mud.”

So appreciative was the federal government for John Browning’s generosity with his inventions in a time of national crisis that no less than the U.S. secretary of war, Newton Baker, wrote him a personal letter of appreciation:

My dear Mr. Browning:
I have learned from Major Little of the patriotic and generous attitude taken by you in the negotiations for the use of your patents of light and heavy machine guns in this emergency, and beg leave to express my appreciation for it. You have performed … a very distinct service to this country in inventions, and contributed to the strength and effectiveness of our armies. You have added to that service by the attitude you have taken in the financial arrangements necessary to have your inventions available to the government.

When the first B.A.R.s and Browning .30 caliber machine guns entered the war in the fall of 1918, a Browning was available on the battlefields of France to inaugurate them. John’s son Val, who had helped in the manufacture of both weapons, was sent to France to train Americans in the use of the new weapons, and was the first to use each of them in the field against the enemy. A heavier machine gun requested by General Pershing, a .50 caliber model, was also developed by Browning but was not in production by war’s end. It did become a staple of U.S. forces in later wars, alongside the B.A.R. and the .30 caliber machine gun. Both machine guns were used to devastating effect on aircraft in the Second World War, and the B.A.R., because of its ruggedness and portability, proved especially effective in jungle warfare in the Pacific theater of that war.

Ode to the Man From Ogden

After the war, John Browning, now in his late 60s, continued to innovate. His last major invention, a 37-millimeter cannon commissioned by the U.S. military, was a sign of things to come — though Browning himself would not live to see them — of modern warfare that would move from the trenches to the skies.

John Moses Browning did not long outlive the war that had seen his invention used to greatest effect. In 1926, he passed away of a heart attack while working at what had become his second home, the Fabrique Nationale at Liege. The ship bearing his body back to his homeland was met by a military escort, and he was eulogized by another grateful secretary of war, Dwight Davis. Reminding the mourners that no invention of John Browning’s had ever proven a failure, Davis went on to confer an extraordinary compliment on the late inventor: “It is not thought that any other individual has contributed so much to the national security of this country as Mr. Browning in the development of our machine guns and our automatic weapons to a state of military efficiency surpassing that of all nations.”

Nor will John Browning, whose many inventions have carried his name and fame far beyond his own time, be remembered only for his military inventions. Scarcely a sportsman or target shooter today can take the field without making use of one or more of Browning’s inventions. In all he secured 128 different patents, and the company his family founded is still in operation, though its headquarters, Ogden, is no longer a dusty frontier village but a mid-sized modern city. The life of John Moses Browning was an American success story of the highest order, of an unassuming genius whose inventions changed the course of modern history, who reaped great rewards for his unique abilities but willingly subordinated self to country when his talents were needed most.

Photo: Ogden Union Station Collection

[x] close

Powered by ScribeFire.

"Let It Come!"

Image via Wikipedia

"Let It Come!"
by Chuck Baldwin
July 21, 2009

During Patrick Henry's famous "Give me liberty or give me death" speech, he said the following:

"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst and to provide for it."

Later in his historic speech Henry said, "Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, Sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone. It is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable. And let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come!"

Of course, Henry ended his stirring speech with the immortal words, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

(The complete text of Patrick Henry's immortal address on March 23, 1775, is found in my giant compilation of great, historic documents called THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, which may be ordered exclusively at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/products.html )

Many people today (including the vast majority of my Christian brethren) are doing exactly what Patrick Henry said many were doing 234 years ago: they prefer to "shut [their] eyes against a painful truth." Just as in 1775, many today, "having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not."

Serious students of history, however, cannot mistake the similarities between the British Crown in 1775 and the federal government in Washington, D.C., today. In fact, I would argue that federal usurpations of State sovereignty, personal liberty, and constitutional government are far more egregious today than at any time during the reign of old King George III. Were America's Founding Fathers alive today, they would have waged another war for independence years ago. Compared to the violations of liberty by the federal government in 2009, the abridgements of liberty committed by the Crown in 1775 were miniscule. We should all hang our heads in shame that we have not already exerted our right and responsibility as free people to "throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for [our] future security" (Declaration of Independence, Paragraph 2). Were we as righteous as our forebears, we would have already done so.

If we were writing a Declaration of Independence today, in which we would "let Facts be submitted to a candid world," the examples of federal abuse of power would be so multitudinous it would be difficult to contain them to a single document. The question is not, "Has the current federal government become tyrannical?" The question is, "How long will the States continue to tolerate it?"

For example, within the last couple of months, the States of Montana and Tennessee have each passed their own "Firearms Freedom Act." Briefly stated, the bills provide that any firearms or ammunition that are manufactured, sold, and kept within the State are not subject to federal law or federal regulation. Clearly, Montana and Tennessee have the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution on their side.

Of course, the Constitution doesn't matter to the federal government. On July 16 of this year, BATFE Assistant Director Carson Carroll sent an "Open Letter" to all firearms dealers within the States of Tennessee and Montana, telling them in no uncertain terms, "Federal law supersedes the [Tennessee or Montana] Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply."

You see folks, in the minds of the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., there is no such thing as constitutional government. There is no such thing as State autonomy. There is no such thing as balance of power. To the miscreants in Washington, D.C., there is only federal authority. To them, these States United are merely colony-subjects, who must bow to an omnipotent, ubiquitous federal power that knows no limits and no boundaries.

I hope and pray that the Tennessee and Montana governors, State legislatures, and State supreme courts will tell Mr. Carroll "where to go," and will defend their State sovereignties "to the end." And by the same token, I hope and pray that dozens more states will put teeth to their State Sovereignty resolutions and follow the examples of Montana and Tennessee.

Add to the continual usurpations of State sovereignty the fact that both the Republican and Democratic parties in Washington, D.C., have allowed our once-great free enterprise system to become a giant socialist economy, and the outlook only gets bleaker. This is why Republicans in D.C. have no moral credibility in opposing President Barack Obama's Marxist-style universal health care proposals. Under George W. Bush, the Republican Party expanded socialism in America like no administration in recent history. Now they are going to oppose the Democrat version of socialism? What a joke!

The only difference between the economic policies of the Democrats and Republicans in Washington, D.C., is Democrats want to tax-and-spend America into socialism for the benefit of the Welfare State, while Republicans want to borrow-and-spend America into socialism for the benefit of the Warfare State. Neither party wants to confine Washington, D.C., to the prescribed limits of the U.S. Constitution. And neither party in Washington, D.C., is willing to recognize the constitutional authority and autonomy of the States United.

Given the fact that both parties are hell-bent on destroying constitutional government, dismantling State sovereignty, and trampling individual liberties, it seems painfully obvious to me that a war for State independence is inevitable. Just exactly what that means is unknown at this point, but all of the elements and ingredients that existed in 1775 exist today. In fact, in view of the battle currently taking place between Nashville/Helena and Washington, D.C., the war has--for all intents and purposes--already begun. And unlike many of my Christian brethren who want to "shut [their] eyes against a painful truth," I say with Patrick Henry, "Let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come!"

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090721.html

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Alan Keyes militia learning " The Valley Truth (truthproject.quebecblogue.com)
• Commentary: No wonder voters are angry (cnn.com)
• Militias Regrouping in U.S., Report Finds (cbsnews.com)
• Teeny, tiny minority of fringe extremists (michellemalkin.com)

History of The Militia

The Militia: In History and Today
Written by John A. Eidsmoe
05 March 2009

The army — defender or destroyer of freedom? Throughout history power-hungry rulers have used armies to conquer and oppress other lands, and to impose tyranny on their own people. But armies have also been used to defend country and freedom — particularly when the government is restrained from abusing the power of the sword, and when the military itself is composed of citizen-soldiers who love liberty and have a strong attachment to the homeland they are entrusted to defend.

The Founding Fathers had mixed feelings about military forces. At least 19 (probably more) of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention had served in the armed forces, several with the rank of general. They knew they owed a debt of gratitude to the continental army and the colonial militias for securing their independence from England.

But they also knew that a standing army could be, in the words of Gov. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, "the bane of liberty." One of the grievances the colonists raised against King George III of England in the Declaration of Independence was that "he has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our Legislature," and further, that he had enacted legislation "for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us."


Recognizing the right of the people to organize locally for their mutual defense, the Founders therefore devised a system of government in which military power is divided between federal forces and a popular militia, between federal and state governments, with power over the military divided between the legislative and executive branches of government.

Not only does the right of the people to organize locally for their mutual defense still exist today, the exercise of that right is every bit as important today as it was during colonial times.

Constitution Provides for the Militia

When the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, they gave considerable attention to matters of national defense. They knew the new nation needed a military defense, but they also knew a standing army could be oppressive. Accordingly, they crafted a Constitution that balanced the power of the national government against that of the state and local governments and their militias. Article I, § 8 provided that

The Congress shall have power ...

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Notice the different language. Congress is empowered to "raise and support" Armies and to "provide and maintain" a Navy, and the two-year appropriation limit for Armies does not apply to the Navy. "Provide and maintain" implies a more permanent force than does "raise and support." The Framers apparently believed a permanent naval force was necessary, but they believed armies should be raised and supported as needed, and in peacetime the nation would rely upon the local and state militias.

Article I, § 8 of the Constitution also addresses the militia:

The Congress shall have power...

To make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Congress has supervisory authority over the armed forces generally, but the authority to train the militia and appoint militia officers is reserved to the states, provided they conduct that training "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." Congress also has power to provide for calling the militia into federal service, meaning that Congress can federalize the militia of one or more states or pass legislation authorizing the president to call the militia into federal service.

One more provision of the Constitution deserves our attention — the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The reference to the militia states a reason for the right to bear arms, not a condition thereto. Note that the word "people" is not used interchangeably with the word "state," and that the term "keep and bear arms" implies individual ownership of weapons. Collectivists have argued that the Second Amendment protects only the right of the state to maintain a military force. However, in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the amendment protects the individual citizen's right to bear arms (although the court also errantly said this right is subject to state regulation).

In 1792, Congress passed the Uniform Militia Act to give limited direction to the state militias. Section 1 of the act defined militia according to the common historic understanding:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizens shall reside, and that within 12 months of the passing of this act.... That every citizen so enrolled and notified shall, within 6 months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack [etc.] ... and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or [into] service ... and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required shall [be] of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound. And every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

The definition of the militia as all able-bodied male citizens was in keeping with the understanding of the time.

Defender of Liberty

One purpose of the militia is to defend the liberty of the people against foreign invaders. Throughout history it has worked effectively, and it still works today. In "The Rationale of the Automatic Rifle," Massad Ayoob recounts part of a conversation that took place when Cmdr. Robert Menard attended a 1960 meeting between U.S. Navy personnel and their Japanese counterparts. One American naval officer asked why the Japanese did not invade America's west coast during WWII. A Japanese admiral answered: "We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand."

But the militia serves another purpose: the defense of the people's liberty against domestic tyrants. To many Americans today, this thought seems radical and almost subversive. But consider James Madison's words in The Federalist, No. 46:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the state governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield in the United States an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

And Alexander Hamilton, a continental colonel but hardly a wild-eyed revolutionary, expressed a similar thought in The Federalist, No. 29:

Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped;... This will not only lessen the call for military establishments; but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and in the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.

Across the ocean and across the millennia, Aristotle would have agreed:

A king's bodyguard is composed of citizens carrying arms; a tyrant's of foreign mercenaries.... Members of the constitution must carry [arms] even among themselves, both for internal government and in the event of civil disobedience and to repel external aggression.... For those who possess and can wield arms are in a position to decide whether the constitution is to continue or not.

From the adoption of the Uniform Militia Act of 1792 through the passage of the Dick Act in 1903, militias continued to be a bulwark of the nation's defense. Usually they were organized locally and consisted of men who were mostly friends and neighbors of each other, and commonly they elected their own officers, although they were subject to state regulation. Just before the War Between the States, the United States Army consisted of 1,108 officers and 15,259 enlisted men, but there were thousands of militias, each consisting of about 30 to 60 men. Quickly after the war began, the Union Army swelled to 2,500,000 men, and the Confederate Army consisted of 1,000,000 men. Both sides relied upon the militia units that fought for their respective states.

After the war, the status of discipline of many militias gradually declined. In the North many of the militias simply ceased to exist, and in the South they were suppressed by the Reconstruction regime. In the 1870s, many states passed new laws requiring male citizens to serve in the militias, but these laws were poorly enforced and largely ignored.

Federalizing the Guard

In 1903, Congress passed the Dick Act, which began the process of federalizing the National Guard. Rep. Charles Dick's bill divided the American adult male population, other than those serving on active duty, into two categories: (1) the National Guard (the organized militia), and (2) the Reserve Militia (the unorganized militia, all other able-bodied adult male citizens). The 1916 National Defense Act revised the Dick Act and provided that "the militia of the United States shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens of the United States ... who shall be more than 18 years of age and ... not more than 45 years of age, and said militia shall be divided into 3 classes, the National Guard, the Naval Militia, and the unorganized militia."

And as federal funding for the Guard increased, so federal control over the Guard also increased, and the Guard gradually ceased to be a defender of the people's liberty against domestic tyranny.

A further reorganization took place in 1933, under which certain specially designated National Guard units received special attention and funding from the federal government. Men who enlisted in these Guard units were considered to have simultaneously enlisted in both their state's Guard Unit and the National Guard of the United States. Members of these units could be ordered to active duty with the United States armed forces, and upon completion of that service, their status would revert to that of members of their state's Guard. Guard units were better funded than before, but much of their independence and their identity as representatives of their respective states was lost. It is an old story, repeated many times before and many times since: federal aid leads to federal control.

At first, members of these units could be ordered to federal service only in the event of a national emergency. (Article I, § 8 says Congress can call the militia into federal service "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.") In 1952, Congress removed that requirement but provided that, in the absence of a national emergency, a state Guard unit could be federalized only with the governor's consent. That consent requirement was partially repealed by the Montgomery Amendment of 1986, which provided that a governor may not withhold his consent to federalization of his state's Guard unit for service outside the United States because of any objection to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such duty.

In 1987, Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich objected to the deployment of the Minnesota National Guard to Central America, alleging that the Montgomery Amendment unconstitutionally interfered with his authority over the Guard pursuant to Article I of the Constitution. In Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), the Supreme Court held that, under the dual-enlistment system established in 1933, guardsmen lose their status as militia members when they are ordered to federal service, and therefore the militia clauses of Article I, § 8 afford them and their units with no constitutional protection. The practical effect of this decision is that National Guardsmen are, first and foremost, federal troops; their connection with the state militias is increasingly tenuous.

Over the years from 1903 to 1990, Guard units have increasingly come under the authority of the United States government. They still bear the name of their respective states, i.e. the Idaho National Guard, and they still perform functions for their respective states. But it is now clear that they are federal forces first, state forces only second, and only at the sufferance of the federal government. The Guard continues to perform admirable service in the defense of our nation, and they serve heroically to defend their states and local communities against natural disasters like Tropical Storm Katrina. Any American who serves or has served in the Guard should be proud indeed. But the guardsman's role as defender of the people of his state against domestic tyranny, as envisioned by Madison and Hamilton, has virtually disappeared.

Enter the State Guard/Defense Force

The role the Founders once envisioned for the militia as guardian of states' rights and the people's liberties, now falls upon State Guard units, or as some states call them, State Defense Force units. But many Americans have never heard of state defense forces and incorrectly assume the state guard is the same as the National Guard.

During the 1950s, several governors objected to their guard units being federalized and called out of the country. Who, they asked, is going to man the armories or do riot or flood control, if the guard is engaged elsewhere? Congress responded in 1956 by adopting 32 U.S.C. § 109, titled "Maintenance of Other Troops," which provides that

(c) In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State or Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or the District of Columbia may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces.

The act also provides that enlistment in a state's defense force shall not exempt a person from the draft, and that a person may not belong to a defense force if he is already a member of a reserve component of the armed forces.

At least 26 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have established defense forces or State Guard units, and they are spread throughout the country: Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. Most states call this force either the State Guard (as distinguished from the National Guard) or the State Defense Force, but others use different titles, like the California State Military Reserve, the Indiana Guard Reserve, the Massachusetts Volunteer Militia, the New Jersey Naval Militia, or the Ohio Military Reserve. I will refer to them generally as State Guard units. Some of these are very active, others less so.

These State Guard units are not the same as the privately organized militias that received so much media attention during the 1980s and '90s. State guard units are organized under state auspices and have distinctive chains of command that start with the governor (not the president because they cannot be federalized), and then the adjutant general of the state, followed by the commander of the state guard, then the brigade commanders, battalion commanders, and company commanders. In Alabama, as in many other states, the adjutant general is appointed by the governor, and he commands the Army National Guard, the Air National Guard, and the Alabama State Defense Force. The Alabama adjutant general and the commander of the State Defense Force are major generals, and the brigade commanders are either brigadier generals or colonels.

Because they cannot be called to federal service, state guardsmen receive no federal pay. They generally do not receive pay from the state for regular drills and commander's calls, but they can receive pay when called to active duty by the governor, and for certain other activities they can receive per diem and mileage.

The headquarters brigades of most State Guard organizations contain many retired military personnel, or at least many who have had some prior active or reserve military service. Prior military service is not a requirement at the brigade, battalion, or company levels, but many who serve at these levels do have prior military service and/or service in law enforcement, firefighting, homeland security, or emergency management. Many state guardsman want a military connection but did not choose the total commitment of an active military career and do not have the time to serve in a reserve or National Guard unit. Age limits are often relaxed, and while State Guard units stress physical fitness, they can often work around disabilities and limitations that the active duty military and the National Guard cannot accept. Those who lead and compose State Guard units have a tremendous wealth of experience in military service, law enforcement, homeland security, emergency management, and many other fields that contribute to the defense of their communities and states.

Missions Accomplished

The missions of the State Guard units are set forth in state statutes or regulations. These may vary from state to state, but generally their role is to fulfill the duties of the National Guard when the National Guard is called out of state or otherwise overtaxed and in need of assistance. For example:

• During Tropical Storm Katrina (2005), guardsmen of the Alabama 3rd Brigade (South Alabama) were called up to the Gulf states to man food distribution centers and otherwise assist in flood control and crowd control; the 2nd Brigade (Central Alabama) and the 1st Brigade (North Alabama) also provided assistance.

• After the 9/11 attack, the Alaska 49th Military Police Brigade performed classified security missions for Alaskan pipelines, railroads, harbors, and ports.

• In 2007, the Maryland State Defense Force performed assessments of National Guard facilities, joined the National Guard for Exercise Vigilant Guard, a homeland security emergency and terrorism response exercise, and performed health screenings for over 900 National Guardsmen deploying overseas.

• During Katrina the Texas State Guard activated more than 1,000 state guardsmen to paid active duty, receiving evacuees at Kelly Air Force Base, the Houston Astrodome, and other emergency centers.

• Also during Katrina, the Virginia State Defense Force provided security for armories and assisted in the deployment of National Guard troops.

The South Carolina State Guard has established an effective communications system whereby every state guardsman has an "sg.sc.gov" e-mail address, thus facilitating prompt emergency readiness responses. (Paul Revere would be envious!)

The State Guard is a uniformed service, and most guardsmen wear a variation of the U.S. Army BDU (battle dress uniform) for regular drill and duty, and the army Class A, Class B, or dress uniform for special occasions, always with distinctive State Guard insignia. (Alabama State Defense Force regulations provide that members with prior Air Force service may wear the Air Force Class A or B or mess dress with ASDF insignia.) Most state guard units follow a ranking system similar to that of the U.S. Army. Personnel with prior military service commonly enter the State Guard at the rank they held when they left active duty, with the possibility of promotion thereafter.

The mission of the State Guard is to augment the National Guard, and therefore guardsmen spend much time training and preparing for the missions they might someday be called upon to perform. This training can take many forms: instruction in military procedures, courtesies, drill and ceremony, leadership training, emergency response, CPR, counter-terrorism, funeral protocol, and many others. Several schools for training state guardsmen have been established, including the School of the Soldier and Military Emergency Management Specialist (MEMS) Academy, and specialized schools for chaplains, medics, communications specialists, and others.

True Successors to the Militia

Besides constituting a cost-effective means of fulfilling America's defense needs and providing many Americans with the opportunity for military service, State Guard units are now the true successors to the militias that the Framers intended as state and local checks upon federal power. In 1997, when the Alabama Freethought Association and the ACLU of Alabama sued to force Etowah County Circuit Judge (later Alabama Chief Justice) Roy Moore to remove a Ten Commandments display from his courtroom, Governor Fob James promised to call up the Alabama National Guard, if necessary, to defend the Ten Commandments display. Had he done so, President Clinton could have countered by federalizing the National Guard. But if Governor James had called up the State Defense Force, President Clinton could not have federalized them. Although State Guard units are not overtly political, their existence is consistent with a constitutional states' rights philosophy, and in this author's experience, state guardsmen generally tend to be politically and socially conservative.

Readers who are interested in the State Guard may go to the website of the State Guard Association of the United States (sgaus.org) and click on the link to their respective State Guard unit, or contact the adjutant general of their respective state for further information.

An addendum from the author (March 27, 2009):

My thanks to all who have written; the many comments (see below) demonstrate that there is substantial interest in state guard units or state defense forces.

Mr. Gates, my list of state guard units was taken from the State Guard Association of the United States website (sgaus.org). I have brought your comments to SGAUS’s attention, and they assure me that they are checking the states you have mentioned. If in fact these links are not legitimate, you have done SGAUS a great service by bringing this to our attention.

Mr. Cronkhite, I appreciate your kind words. I respectfully disagree with your assertion that modern state defense forces are not within the meaning of the term “militia” as used in the Constitution. The phrase “well regulated militia” in the Second Amendment clearly indicates that the Framers expected the militia to have some training and organization, as do Madison’s and Hamilton’s comments in The Federalist, No. 46 and 29. As to whether state defense forces or state guard units constitute “troops” as the term is used in Art. I § 10 of the Constitution, the answer might depend on the functions these units perform in their respective states. In either event, Article I § 10 says that states may not keep troops in time of peace “without the Consent of Congress.” Federal statutes authorizing the organization of national guard units and state defense forces clearly constitute the consent of Congress.

Mr. Stertz, recent changes to the Insurrection Act are a valid concern and a good subject for a future article.

Badger, I’ll let you and Mr. Gates work out your differences — hopefully without having to activate the Colorado Front Rangers. I believe people have a God-given right to self-defense, individually and/or collectively. When this right is exercised collectively, that is normally done through a militia with ties to state and local government, because defense is one of the few legitimate functions of government. But that does not mean defense is exclusively the function of government. When government abdicates or fails in its responsibility to defend the populace, the people may organize outside government. But state guard units and state defense forces recognized by SGAUS are linked to state and local government.

Again, my thanks to all who have written. I hope constitutionalists will see state guard units as opportunities for service.

John Eidsmoe, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, holds the rank of colonel in the Alabama State Defense Force, is a professor at the Oak Brook College of Law & Government Policy, and serves as legal counsel for the Foundation for Moral Law.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Second Amendment and the States

The Second Amendment and the States
Written by Patrick Krey

 09 June 2009

There are few topics that can divide people who are normally ideological bedfellows like the legal doctrine of the “incorporation” of the Bill of Rights against the states and the Second Amendment. This subject is rearing its head again with the upcoming appointment of a new Supreme Court justice as well as federal courts' recent conflicting opinions in regards to the Second Amendment. The Wall Street Journal reports that on June 2nd, “A federal appeals court in Chicago ruled … that the Second Amendment doesn't bar state or local governments from regulating guns, adopting the same position that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, did when faced with the same question earlier this year.”

This ruling contrasts with a recent ruling by “the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ... that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states and local governments” — in other words, states and local governments are bound by the Second Amendment. Which court is correct?

To understand the debate in this topic, it helps to briefly review constitutional history. When the Constitution was first proposed, opponents of the new document criticized it for lacking a bill of enumerated rights, which were common in virtually every state constitution of the time. In response to these complaints, proponents of the new Constitution agreed to add a series of amendments in the first Congress that would codify restrictions on the federal government to infringe certain fundamental rights. The resulting first 10 Amendments, collectively referred to as the “Bill of Rights,” were ratified on December 15, 1791.

It is important to note two little-known historical facts regarding the proposal and ratification of the Bill of Rights. Alexander Hamilton, himself a prominent advocate of a liberal reading of the necessary and proper clause as well as a loose construction of the Constitution, argued that a Bill of Rights would be dangerous because it would imply that without such an enumeration of rights, the new government might actually have the power to infringe on these rights and might even now open the door for the government to regulate in these areas. In Federalist # 84, Hamilton wrote:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? … I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.

Hamilton basically was saying that the national government lacked the power to do any of the things that the proposed Bill of Rights were prohibiting, and codifying these restrictions might lead some to argue that the national government could actually regulate in those areas, which he felt was completely unconstitutional.

In addition, James Madison, widely regarded as “The Father of the Constitution,” wanted to have the Bill of Rights restrictions to be held against the states but was rebuffed in this effort because of widely held reservations to further empower the new government over the states. The first Congress refused to even submit such a proposal to the states for ratification because it was so unpopular. As a matter of fact, numerous states had gun-control laws on the books at the time, as well as state-chartered religions. It was not that the citizens were necessarily opposed to state involvement in these matters but rather did not want any federal intrusion.

These two historical facts illustrate that, at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, it was recognized by the Framers and Ratifiers that the national government had no authority to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states, and whatever authority it did have was clearly delineated in the text of the Constitution itself. Therefore, the Bill of Rights did not give the national government any new powers but simply reiterated important restrictions upon it and not the states. This understanding is consistent with the position that not only does the Second Amendment protect an individual “right to bear arms” against federal action but also that the national government lack any power whatsoever to regulate within this area. Additionally, the states are free to regulate (or not regulate) in that area based on their own state constitutions.

The fact that the Bill of Rights did not apply against the states was not modified until after the ratification of the 14th Amendment and the judicial creation of the incorporation doctrine. The incorporation doctrine refers to the court selectively “incorporating” certain amendments in the Bill of Rights against state governments via a liberal reading of the 14th Amendment — completely contrary to the original understanding at the time of its ratification as explained by widely respected legal scholar Raoul Berger in Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment. As the late Congressman Larry McDonald explained, the rationale behind the incorporation doctrine “runs completely contrary to thoughts and purposes of the original framers.... Their intent was to limit the rights and powers of the federal government, not to help expand them.”

The courts liberal interpretation allowed the federal courts to widen their jurisdiction and judicially review numerous state laws. Some libertarians welcome this development in constitutional history as a great opportunity to spread freedom because it gives advocates of individual liberty “two bites at the freedom apple — one under his state constitution and one under the U.S. Constitution.” Sadly, the constitutional record of incorporation is not something many advocates of individual liberty can be proud of.

Constitutional historian Kevin R.C. Gutzman details the sordid history of the incorporation doctrine:

This is what the Incorporation Doctrine has given us: in place of reservation of these areas of law to state governments for regulation via legislative elections, we get seizure of control over them by unelected, unaccountable, politically connected lawyers (that is, federal judges) who purport to substitute “reason” for the (one infers) “unreasonable” regulations crafted by elected officials.... It was under the cover of the Incorporation Doctrine that federal courts recently invented a right of child rapists not to face the ultimate penalty for their crimes. It was under the cover of the Incorporation Doctrine, indeed, that a Supreme Court majority for several years banned capital punishment altogether. It was under the cover of the Incorporation Doctrine that the Supreme Court eliminated state prohibitions of various types of pornography. The Incorporation Doctrine also underlies the Court-created ban on prayer, even on moments of silence, in public schools. The Incorporation Doctrine has allowed federal courts to invent rights to burn flags, ban invocations at high school graduations, and establish essentially a national code of “acceptable” punishments.

Furthermore, it was with the help of the incorporation doctrine that the “politically connected lawyers” on the court were able to invent “penumbras” giving rise to the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, and there were even discussions at the height of judicial activism to engrain a right to a minimum wage within constitutional law. Libertarians should be careful what they wish for because the “interpreters” on the court do not always see eye-to-eye with their vision of liberty.

Ironically, libertarian proponents of incorporation who usually are almost universally opposed to state power, let alone massively centralizing power in a super state, are in effect advocating the use of a larger, more powerful central government (via its court system) to force smaller governments to “be more free” without recognizing the fact that freedom means different things to different people. Such a contradictory line of thought is in direct conflict with the proud Jeffersonian decentralist tradition of those who founded our constitutional republic.

This leads us back to gun-rights activists who are currently expending numerous resources trying to get federal judges to incorporate the bill of rights against the states. Ironically, years of money spent trying to get federal judges to advance the cause of gun rights resulted in the disappointing Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller where the “conservatives” on the court acknowledged that the Second Amendment protects an individual right “to bear arms” but that right is not “unlimited” and there is still room for reasonable restrictions on gun control. As renowned constitutional attorney Edwin Vieira, Jr. wrote last fall in The New American, “Could Heller allow gun regulation to the point that the regulation could become a prohibition for all practical purposes? What effect will it have, if any, on existing or future gun laws in other jurisdictions throughout the country?”

The Heller decision was disheartening to gun rights advocates who believed that vast amounts of money spent on endless legal challenges would engrain an unlimited right to gun ownership in our constitutional law. Related efforts to incorporate the limited protections of Heller against the state will face similar frustration. Those who put their faith in “politically connected lawyers” to uphold their rights and advance the cause of freedom will continue to be disappointed. Perhaps these activists will now realize that federal judges are not reliable friends of individual liberty and instead will focus their energy on a much more realistic goal of making Congress constitutional.

[x] close

Powered by ScribeFire.

Oh Say Can You See?

The American Flag

Written by John White
May 2009

The start of a baseball game, a football game, a NASCAR race, or a rodeo is predictable: crowds turn to face the American flag; men doff their hats; women put their hands on their hearts; and the “Star-Spangled Banner” is sung. And if you take your eyes from the flag for a few moments and look around, and at the same time listen, you may experience something rather profound. Whether clean-shaven or unshaven, whether yuppies or in boots and hats, whether holding children in their arms or apparently alone, Americans of all ages have tears forming in their eyes and catches in their throats as they sing and they stare at the American flag.

Even men, the more stoic segment of society, are choked up with emotion, and you can “feel” a unity among Americans. The same type of response can often be experienced at parades when a color guard marches by carrying the Stars and Stripes — no matter what the music being played.

What is it about the American flag that provokes such a response? Well, the answer is “everything.” The flag of the United States of America is an emblem of our country’s ideals, principles, values, and traditions. It is the sense of America’s history and its vast contribution to human betterment, including the service many Americans gave to the country’s armed forces and the bloody cost of protecting and preserving that contribution. It represents the total experience of America and the American people from the founding of our nation to the present. It also represents our philosophy of government — a recognition that life, liberty, personal sovereignty, individual rights, human dignity, and the opportunity to pursue happiness are given to us by God because that is the only basis that can guarantee those blessings for everyone. Last of all, it represents our great traditions, institutions, and ideals: national sovereignty, representative government in a constitutional federal republic, the rule of law, and people of diverse backgrounds living and working together as free citizens.

It is the symbol of the most enduring free people who have ever lived.

And although our flag is a symbol, it is also considered to be a living thing. President Woodrow Wilson said, “Though silent, it speaks to us — speaks to us of the past; of the men and women who went before us and of the record they wrote into it.”

Other icons of American freedom — the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall, the Capitol, the Statue of Liberty, the bald eagle, Uncle Sam — have their places in our hearts. They convey the meaning of our national experience in various ways and serve well the process of citizen education about our precious heritage. But the majesty and grandeur of the flag flying freely against the sky is the most powerful focal point for Americans who carry forward the dream of liberty and justice for all.

The official name of our flag is “The Flag of the United States of America.” It is also referred to as the National Flag, National Ensign, National Color, and National Standard. However, as with a good friend, Americans speak of our flag by nicknames: the Stars and Stripes; the Star-spangled Banner; Old Glory; the Red, White, and Blue. It is the fourth oldest national flag in the world, after Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands.

In an earlier era, when warriors marched into battle behind their regimental and national colors (and children played “Capture the Flag,” knowing what that meant), our flag was regarded by our soldiers as the rallying point of action. It represented everything for which they fought — home, corps, and country — and it contained the honor, valor, and hopes of every man around it. “Our flag must never falter, touch the ground in defeat or be lowered to an enemy,” they silently said, and they guarded it courageously, even unto death. The greatest shame in battle was to surrender one’s flag to a victor, but the American flag has been unvanquished.

Yes, we’ll rally round the flag, boys, we’ll rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom
— “The Battle Cry of Freedom,” George Frederick Root, 1863

The great American heritage of freedom is the most precious possession of the entire world. Because our flag embodies that glorious achievement and ideal, it is worthy of our honor, our affections, our deepest sacrifices. We revere the flag, not through unquestioning worship but from a deep appreciation of our national heritage and from gratitude for our good fortune to be Americans. What other nation in all of human history has stated, as the Preamble to our Constitution does, that it was founded “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”? In our flag we see our nation itself and the proud history upon which it stands.

Equally important is how others see our flag. Floating from the lofty pinnacle of American idealism, it is a beacon of enduring hope to the oppressed of all lands. It floats over an assemblage of people from every race, creed, and color whose united hearts constitute an indivisible and invincible force for the defense and aid of the downtrodden. It proclaims liberty and justice for all people.

The Design of the Flag

When our flag was created on June 14, 1777, no records were left to explain the meaning of its colors. Their meaning was first stated in 1782 in a report to Congress by the committee charged with designing the Great Seal of the United States. Charles Thomson, secretary of the Continental Congress, stated that the seal’s escutcheon has the same colors and meaning as those of the flag. He wrote, “White signifies purity and innocence, Red hardiness & valor, and Blue … signifies vigilance, perseverance & justice.”

Today it is more broadly — but unofficially — said that red stands for the courage, heroism, and sacrifices of the 44,000,000 men and women who have served in the armed services of our country, and for the blood shed to preserve our liberty; white stands for peacefulness and the purity of our high ideals; and blue, the color of the heavens, connotes the justice, strength, loyalty, and unity of all our states.

The stripes of our flag remind us of the 13 original colonies that constituted America as a new nation and gained us our liberty. The 50 five-pointed stars represent the 50 states bound together as one nation. The field of blue is technically called a canton, but is generally called the union or field of stars. According to a booklet about the flag published by the U.S. House of Representatives in 1977, “The star is a symbol of the heavens and the divine goal to which man has aspired from time immemorial; the stripe is symbolic of the rays of light emanating from the sun.”

The U.S. Flag Code

The display of our flag is governed by law to assure that it is treated with respect. The U.S. Flag Code prescribes proper display of and respect for the Flag of the United States. It is a guide for all handling and display of our flag. It was established by U.S. Code Title 36, Patriotic Societies and Observances, Chapter 10, “Patriotic Customs.” However, the code is dependent upon voluntary conformance. It does not impose penalties for misuse of the flag. That is left to the states and to the federal government of the District of Columbia, though an activist Supreme Court has declared that citizens may disrespect our flag as a form of free speech under the First Amendment.

Before 1923, there were no federal or state regulations governing display of the U.S. flag. At that time the American Legion called for a National Flag Conference to draft a code of flag etiquette for civilians. Representatives of the Army and Navy, which had evolved their own procedures, and 71 private organizations met in Washington, D.C. Their purpose was to provide guidance based on Army and Navy procedures relating to display and associated questions about the U.S. flag.

President Warren G. Harding, in addressing the conference, said, “I hope that you will succeed in formulating a code that will be welcomed by all Americans, and that every patriotic and educational society in the Republic will commit itself to the endorsement and observance and purposes of the code that you adopt here today.”

The resulting National Flag Code was adopted by all organizations in attendance, although it had no official government sanction. Nevertheless, it represented the authoritative opinion of the principal patriotic bodies of the nation, both civilian and military. Over time, the National Flag Code became widely accepted. However, it was not until 1942 that Congress passed a joint resolution on the subject and made it the law of our land.

Promotion of respect for the flag and knowledge about it is required in most states, usually through flag exercises, programs, or instruction. However, in 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette et al. that it is unconstitutional for state boards of education or local school boards to make the flag salute compulsory.

Flag Etiquette

The fundamental rule of flag etiquette is: treat the Stars and Stripes with respect and common sense.

The flag is flown at full-staff to indicate joy — the joy of being American. It is flown at half-staff to indicate mourning. In either case, it should always be aloft and free. It should be hoisted briskly and lowered ceremoniously. When raising the flag to half-staff, raise it to the top of the flagpole for a moment before lowering it. When taking it down for the night, raise it to the top of the flagpole again and then lower it to the bottom.

The flag should never be dipped to any person or thing, nor should it ever be displayed with the union down except as a signal of dire distress. When lowered, it should be received by waiting hands and arms, and should not touch the ground.

The flag should be flown daily from sunrise to sunset in good weather from public buildings, schools, permanent staffs in the open, and near polling places on election days. An all-weather flag may also be flown in bad weather. When a patriotic effect is desired, the flag may be displayed 24 hours a day if properly illuminated during the hours of darkness.

The flag should always be flown on national and state holidays and on those occasions proclaimed by the president. On Memorial Day, the flag should be displayed at half-staff until noon.

To store the flag, ceremoniously fold it lengthwise in half, then repeat with the blue field on the outside. Finally, while one person holds it by the blue field, another then makes a triangular fold in the opposite end, continuing to fold it in triangles until only the blue field shows.

The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever, nor should any picture, drawing, insignia, or other decoration be placed upon or attached to the flag, its staff, or halyard. The flag should not be embroidered on personal items nor printed on anything designed for temporary use and then discarded.

No flag or pennant may be flown above the flag or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy.

Never throw away a flag! When a flag is no longer of dignified appearance and cannot be repaired, or when a flag is so worn or soiled that it is no longer suitable for display, it should be destroyed in a dignified manner, preferably by burning. In military parlance, it is consigned to the flames in a brief ceremony.

The final flag etiquette lesson for readers is this: when the American flag passes by in a color guard, stop talking, stand at attention, and, when it is six paces away, cross your heart with your right hand until it is six paces past you. Men and boys should remove their hats. People in uniform should salute in the manner prescribed by their organization. If the flag is simply part of a float or is being carried in some way other than in a color guard, no action is necessary.

Although the flag of our nation has undergone many changes throughout our history, none of the earlier flags are considered to be obsolete. They are simply representative of an earlier era. They may be flown as “legal” and are entitled to the same respect as our current-day flag.


John White, the author/editor of 15 books, lives in Cheshire, Connecticut. He is a former naval officer.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Liberty Flag of Schenectady (timesunion.com)
• Happy Flag Day 2009! (dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com)
• Memorial Day Flag Etiquette: What You Need to Know (blippitt.com)

CLC Gets Grizzly Tonight Exploring Grassroots Politics and Current Events!

Join Shelli Dawdy and Sandra Crosnoe on Blog Talk Radio

this evening on The Constitutional Liberty Coalition Gets Grizzly

as we explore Grassroots politics and current events!

___________________

We hope to be joined by RJ Harris a constitutional liberty candidate in Oklahoma CD04 going after RINO Tom Cole in 2010. He will update us on his race and the Sooner Tea Party rally this week protesting Obamacare.  Join us for updates on our recent alerts that were sent out via email also. We'll review the status of Sotomayor's confirmation, Cap and Trade, Socialized Medicine, and the Pass Act.

______________________

Finally, we hope that Liberty Rider, Michael Maresco will have a minute to give us an update on his whereabouts and his plans.

He is there at the destination near the gateway to Alcatraz!

_______________

Have a Grassroots “tale” to share thoughts on stopping the Sotomayor Confirmation?

Call us! 646-915-9997

Tuesday nights at 8PM EDT * 7PM CDT *6PM MDT * 5PM PDT

STOP Sotomayor Now -- Vote this week!

STOP Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to US Supreme Court

Position: Senate members should oppose her nomination, vocally.

Reasons:

Sotomayor has made public statements and issued rulings that indicate:

• Lack of respect for the right to bear arms


• Racial and gender bias


• Lack of respect for property rights


• Has indicated "empathy" is a higher priority than following the law

Further:

• Made a statement that appellate court judges make law


• Her testimony last week has troubling contradictions in contrast to her writings and the facts of her life.


• During her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she showed a surprising lack of technical legal knowledge during some questioning, particularly in an interchange with Senator Hatch.


• Has had a high rate of judicial error - 40%+ (her rulings were overturned)


• Supports abortion through her statement that Roe v. Wade is settled law

Principles:

• We should oppose those who are not clearly strict constructionists


• Supporters of the Constitution in the Senate need to start showing themselves


• Members of the Senate need to put the President on notice regarding this and future nominees to the Court

Status:

Conclusion of the hearings process, no clear date available regarding full Senate floor vote

Links:

Gun Owners of America has been closely watching and researching this nominee, providing very good general information (beyond the Second Amendment) on their site.

GOA's Executive Director Larry Pratt, was a guest on a special episode of the Blog Talk Radio show The Constitutional Liberty Coalition Gets Grizzly on Thursday, July 16 to discuss the Sotomayor nomination. Larry gave a good deal of detailed information about Sotomayor and why her nomination should be opposed. You can listen by clicking here.

Former Supreme Court Nominee Robert Bork made statements regarding Sotomayor and recent history on the confirmation process on Newsmaxx, Tuesday.

Wall Street Journal article on how little information was gleaned from Sotomayor's testimony.

______________________

SUGGESTED ACTIONS:

• Maintain pressure on US Senate and House representatives (contact them)


• On particular issues, contact your Governor, State legislators, county, and city representatives.


• Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper


• Forward this message to everyone in your contacts list

CONTACTING CONGRESS:

1. Call the office for your Senator or House representatives


2. Ask to speak directly with your Senator or Congressman


3. Be sure to give your zip code so they know you are a constituent


4. Be polite, but firm


5. The next best method to a phone call is a fax, the least effective is email (make the phone ring in the office!)

WHY CONTACT YOUR STATE & LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES?

• Several bills currently moving through Congress, if passed, seriously encroach on states' rights, and in turn will put a lot of pressure on county and city governments.


• It is essential that our state governments assert their sovereign rights


• Although State legislatures are not currently in session this is the period during which legislators have the time to consider issues that need attention, or bills they will sponsor.

_______________________________________________________

(for more details/links on these bills)

______________________________

"Health Care Reform" / Socialized Medicine

Several versions exist Was H.R. 676 now, H.R. 3200 (see summary article, linked)

Stated Purpose: To make affordable health care available to all

Position: OPPOSE

_____________________________________________________

The PASS Act H.R. 1291

Stated Purpose: To better protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of personally identifiable information collected by States when issuing driver’s licenses and identification documents, and for other purposes.

Position: OPPOSE

____________________________________________________

HR 2454 (2998) American Clean Energy and Security Act - Cap & Trade

Stated purpose: Reduce carbon emissions, achieve energy independence

Position: Oppose

__________________________________________________________

S. 909 Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Bill

Purpose: Increases penalties for certain crimes committed against certain people, particularly based on sexual orientation

Position: OPPOSE

Looking Forward to Liberty - Ryan Underwood at Broken Arrow TeaParty July 4th

By request, here are my notes from today. Thanks to the
rain, the ink was disappearing as I was speaking!/ru

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

I am not here today to talk about politics.

Let me tell you why.

For example, I'm not really interested in discussions about
this tax or that tax, because it amounts to debating whether
we should prefer a ball and chain around our ankles to a
yoke upon our necks.

In any case, as long as you are forced to pay tax to keep
your own homestead, you are a serf; the amount of such a
tax only defines the depth of your serfdom. Why do we not
hear impassioned calls for a "fair property tax" -- which
would be none whatsoever?

The income tax forces you to share your profits with your
masters to further their own purposes. But even if you
object to the arrangement forced upon you, the property tax
says "you must work within whatever state profit-sharing
arrangement exists, or you will be homeless."

Some people would like to tell you that one political party
or another, one political organization or another, or one
mass media demagogue or another is the answer. We have been
told this for as long as I can remember, for my entire life.

They tell you this because the last thing they want you to
realize is that the answer is actually within each one of
us. What we have been failing to do is to ask the right
questions.

I think I would receive much agreement here if I were to say
that stealing is wrong, regardless of whether or not it has
been legalized.

But is it wrong for the State, in the name of "law and
order", to kill a man who resists stealing of his
possessions and furthermore refuses to be carted off to the
dungeon for mere defense of his property, with knowledge
that he would then both be in the dungeon and his property
would be taken to boot?

What about when the State lies about the value of a man's
property, so that its self-interested taking of the property
can be spun as having come at less cost to the taxpayers?

Let's go back a few generations with the "Ghost of Liberty
Past." The economic historian Murray Rothbard wrote
extensively about colonial America, revealing scores of
events that have fallen down the public-school memory hole.

One such event is the Crown making a gift to William Penn of
what would later become Pennsylvania. The part of the story
that is not told is that it took Penn almost two decades to
successfully establish a government in Pennsylvania, because
the Quakers were not only not interested in political
government, but refused to consent to it, refused to
cooperate, and were otherwise incorrigible in their love for
liberty.

Another event that has been largely forgotten, when it has
not been misrepresented, is Shays' Rebellion. The usual
story that is told is that farmers got themselves into debt,
declared war on the bankers, and were put down by state
troops with merely a dispassionate interest in "law and
order". Well, the usual story omits a very important
detail: the "debt" that the farmers accrued was in the form
of unpaid taxes to the state of Massachusetts to cover debts
the state itself had run up. The mercantile interests
behind the state government, who would have profited from
the taxes, raised the army that put down the rebellion, and
thereby kept the poor in servitude to the state-connected
rich.

These stories hint at the reasons why Thomas Jefferson said
a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. He didn't
mean post angry messages on Internet message boards. He
didn't mean go door to door and try to convince people of
the correctness of your political views. Nor did he mean to
provoke violent confrontation, as anger and frustration
tends to lead to. He meant intelligent, calculated
resistance to political power, together with your families,
neighbors, and friends.

Do you really want independence on this Independence Day?
Resolve to do like the Quakers did. Buy some fertile land
somewhere you wish to live, and as time goes by, buy even
more land from the surrounding areas. Sell plots within
your land to family and friends who share your beliefs.
When someone comes in from some faraway government
pretending to have the authority to order you around,
politely tell them to leave and not to return.

They are likely to return anyway -- given that government
will have no other gods before it -- but by owning a large
area of land settled with people who refuse their demands,
their attempts at controlling you will be like trying to
ride a bicycle through a bog. Your little enclave will be
successful at practical resistance where the single family
hiding out in a remote Idaho homestead would not be. A
thousand such enclaves would send Washington D.C. into
bankruptcy proceedings.

If you can't afford land, then find economic independence as
soon as you can. During the bailout votes, there was a lot
of talk about "Going Galt", which is to essentially stop
working in order to stop paying taxes. But, if you are
broke, the power elite will have their way with you, because
he who has the money makes the rules. You will not be able
to buy the land, tools, and other capital you need in order
to live an independent life.

My suggestion instead is to work hard AND pay no taxes.
There is a bustling community on Craigslist of people
buying, selling, and trading everything under the sun, with
no government regulations or taxes involved. Spend your
time when you are away from your corporate job in the
official economy learning to do something that is valuable
in the underground, unofficial economy. And if you have not
yet redeemed your Federal Reserve notes for gold and silver
coin, for heaven's sake, do so while you still can.

Maybe one day, we the people will have the power not only to
vote for a new crop of legislators, but to do as the kings
did when they would dissolve Parliament and send the whole
lot of scoundrels home for a year. Maybe we will one day
have the power to live our lives in our own style, following
our own moral code even when it is in opposition to the
moral code of government.

But until that day comes, declare independence in your head,
and get busy living the way you want to live. Nobody is
going to do it for you. Declare your independence!

--
Ryan C. Underwood
runderwo(at)mail.win.org

[Editor's note: We don't have video from this event yet, but will post when/if available]

D. R. I. P. USA

This is my take on our current situation:

The Tea Parties began as a grassroots effort on Twitter February 2, 2009. We have complete documentation of that fact on this blog. What has happened to the movement is usually what happens when politicians and their hacks get involved. Unfortunately, some of the people fell for the "power trip" and were seduced into collecting email lists, etc. PayPal buttons (etc) appeared overnight on blogs that were originally purely grassroots.

Tea Party pages popped up everywhere. When they start collecting money, to whom does it go? I am betting on the usual suspects. Some of us are very upset about this for obvious reasons. Once the Gingrich, Armey, and Rove (etc) people get involved we are back at square one! Our only hope as free people is to throw the incompetent thieves out of the House and Senate! At least let them know we are watching every flipping thing they do.

@DRIPusa (on Twitter) is the "mother ship". DRIP= Dont Re-elect Incumbent Politicians. The @--grassroots states will report on each of their Senators and as many of their Congressmen as possible. The Good. The Bad. The Ugly. We will leave no stone unturned and whatever crawls out, so be it.

We need people that are with us. People who realize the importance of this manuever. People who love our country and want to save our Constitutional Republic. Each state needs a manager for it's page, to post activities, and report how their representatives vote; tell who and what they are!!

Teaparty Grassroots is the main URL for each state. People are hungry for some form of uniformity. We must have uniformity to be united as a people.

We started @DRIPusa, 1 week ago. All 50 states now have a grassroots Twitter page. Our first mission is to STOP CapNtade in the Senate. We all work late at night to help organize with anyone that needs help. We are not paid for our efforts, nor do we back down from those that are. We do it for God, Family and Country.

If you would like to join us, and you agree with our philosophy, please let us know.We need real Patriots without significant encumbering political ties. Contact @DRIPusa if you would like to join us.

Open Letter to the Grassroots -- of, for, and by us all!

Factoid #1: You are organizing local events and working very hard, but want a consolidated site for listing events and ways to be connected to others doing the similar things.  Some groups are trying to take credit for what you are doing, have their own, agendas, are attempting to raise money from these efforts, and building databases of contact information.

Solution #1: A site that is run by the grassroots for the grassroots that doesn't try to solicit for or capture the general publics' contact information, doesn't appeal for fund donations for no clearly stated purpose, and whose agenda is transparent.

We decided, with all of that in mind, to create Tea Party Grassroots.  Because we started from scratch, we decided to strive for a listing venue that would be useful to activists for many kinds of events and activities.  So in addition to a section for All Events, we have added the following categories:

•    Tea Party
•    Other Rallies & Protests
•    Conferences & Conventions
•    Media Events
•    Volunteer Activities
•    Liberty Rider Itinerary

Next we will be exploring creating listings by states.  As time allows, we are featuring individual events as a top post on the site.  Featured events are automatically propagated through a number of channels including automatic feeds on Twitter and Facebook.

We have employed a number of tools on the site that offer extendable functionality; Google Calendar and Maps.  Full calendars (by category or All Events) can be copied over to people's personal calendars using the iCal (.ics) technology and map links are embedded. When events are listed, we copy the information over to the map and use a specific pin for each category. The map is located here.  Like the Calendar, the map can be copied over to a visitors' own Google map.

In addition to the features noted above, we have a growing group on Facebook, which will be updated regularly and "bigger" events listed. For example, for July 4, a "national" Independence Tea Party Event has been created.   We will list links to individual location events for that date from the primary listing site (to prevent exclusion of multiple events on same date from occurring).

In addition to the event listings, we are providing some helpful information and resources to site visitors such as signs and slogan ideas, suggestions for getting involved, and founding documents.

Factoid #2: People are looking for ways to connect with others of like mind and work on projects together.

Solution #2: Those of us who have been putting these events on and bringing people together in our local areas to have an impact on swiftly moving events have many good ideas which we can share with one another. We all need input from others, and we all need support from those who have "been there" in dealing with the many issues that arise. We need to be able to communicate with one another, so we have also created a site for organizers and activists:  Tea Party Grassroots Organizers

This is the place where the listing form for submitting events is located, along with a form to offer to volunteer to help us with this project, and a form to submit a blog post.  We are adding resources on a daily basis to assist organizers and activists in their efforts.

We created a blog site, Tea Blogs: Tea Party Tales, specifically for organizers to share their stories and thoughts about the movement. A blog post submission form is available on the Organizers site.

In addition to the site and blog, we created a Twitter ID and Hashtag for Tea Party Organizers, TPOrg #tporg.  This is one id that has posts from the Tea Party Grassroots and Organizers sites automatically fed.  We encourage organizers to use the hashtag in communications with one another, and many have already begun to do so.

If used widely, this tag could enable very fast communications among a large number of people. Not only could we all retweet events and other important information for one another, but, we could also provide quick support when help is needed.

Finally, there is further work to be done in providing the kind of communicative ability for organizers and activists we are striving for. We do have a forum, which is currently turned to private.  We are currently looking at options, however, to be installed on the Organizers site, to keep communications all in one place. If you would like to help with this part of the project, let us know.

========================================

Now you might ask who is the 'we' in this piece.  Most of the site development was done by Shelli Dawdy, Joan Fabiano, and Sandra Crosnoe. In a broader sense, many of the Constitutional Liberty Coalition had input and provided testing and insight all along the way.  Thanks to each and everyone who helped and continues to provide guidance and share with grassroots folks everywhere.