Message from Mr. Patrick Henry....

The Debates in the Several State Conventions, (Virginia), on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution
[Elliot's Debates, Volume 3]
Friday, June 6, 1788.
.
"I have thought, and still think, that a full investigation of the actual situation of America ought to precede any decision of this great and important question. That government is no more than a choice among evils, is acknowledged by the most intelligent among mankind, and has been a standing maxim for ages. If it be demonstrated that the adoption of the new plan is a little or a trifling evil, then, sir, I acknowledge that adoption ought to follow; but, sir, if this be a truth, that its adoption may entail misery on the free people of this country, I then insist that rejection ought to follow. Gentlemen strongly urge, its adoption will be a mighty benefit to us; but, sir, I am made of so incredulous materials, that assertions and declarations do not satisfy me. I must be convinced, sir. I shall retain my infidelity on that subject till I see our liberties secured in a manner perfectly satisfactory to my understanding.
.
"There are certain maxims by which every wise and enlightened people will regulate their conduct. There are certain political maxims which no free people ought ever to abandon--maxims of which the observance is essential to the security of happiness. It is impiously irritating the avenging hand of Heaven, when a people, who are in the full enjoyment of freedom, launch out into the wide ocean of human affairs, and desert those maxims which alone can preserve liberty. Such maxims, humble as they are, are those only which can render a nation safe or formidable. Poor little humble republican maxims have attracted the admiration, and engaged the attention, of the virtuous and wise in all nations, and have stood the shock of ages. We do not now admit the validity of maxims which we once delighted in. We have since adopted maxims of a different, but more refined nature--new maxims, which tend to the prostration of republicanism.
.
"We have one, sir, that all men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into society, they cannot by any compact deprive or divest their posterity. We have a set of maxims of the same spirit, which must be beloved by every friend to liberty, to virtue, to mankind: our bill of rights contains those admirable maxims.
.
Now, sir, I say, let us consider whether the picture given of American affairs ought to drive us from those beloved maxims.
.
At present we have our liberties and privileges in our own hands. Let us not relinquish them. Let us not adopt this system till we see them secure. There is some small possibility that, should we follow the conduct of Massachusetts, amendments might be obtained. There is a small possibility of amending any government; but, sir, shall we abandon our most inestimable rights, and rest their security on a mere possibility? The gentleman fears the loss of the Union. If eight states have ratified it unamended, and we should rashly imitate their precipitate example, do we not thereby disunite from several other states? Shall those who have risked their lives for the sake of the Union be at once thrown out of it? If it be amended, every state will accede to it; but by an imprudent adoption in its defective and dangerous state, a schism must inevitably be the consequence.
.
I can never, therefore, consent to hazard our most unalienable rights on an absolute uncertainty.
.
You are told there is no peace, although you fondly flatter yourselves that all is peace; no peace; a general cry and alarm in the country; commerce, riches, and wealth, vanished; citizens going to seek comforts in other parts of the world; laws insulted; many instances of tyrannical legislation...
.
We have the animating fortitude and persevering alacrity of republican men to carry us through misfortunes and calamities. It is the fortune of a republic to be able to withstand the stormy ocean of human vicissitudes. I know of no danger awaiting us. Public and private security are to be found here in the highest degree. Sir, it is the fortune of a free people not to be intimidated by imaginary dangers. Fear is the passion of slaves....
.
Sir, I fear this change will ultimately lead to our ruin. My fears are not the force of imagination; they are but too well founded. I tremble for my country; but, sir, I trust, I rely, and I am confident, that this political speculation has not taken so strong a hold of men's minds as some would make us believe.
.
The dangers which may arise from our geographical situation will be more properly considered a while hence. At present, what may be surmised on the subject, with respect to the adjacent states, is merely visionary. Strength, sir, is a relative term. When I reflect on the natural force of those nations that might be induced to attack us, and consider the difficulty of the attempt, and uncertainty of the success, and compare thereto the relative strength of our country, I say that we are strong. We have no cause to fear from that quarter; we have nothing to dread from our neighboring states. The superiority of our cause would give us an advantage over them, were they so unfriendly or rash as to attack us. . . . . . As long as we can preserve our unalienable rights, we are in safety...
.
...Their valor, sir, has been active; every thing that sets in motion the springs of the human heart engaged them to that protection of their inestimable privileges. They have not only secured their own liberty, but have been the arbiters of the fate of other people.
.
The honorable member then observed, that nations will expend millions for commercial advantages; that is, that they will deprive you of every advantage if they can. Apply this another way. Their cheaper way, instead of laying out millions in making war upon you, will be to corrupt your senators. I know that, if they be not above all price, they may make a sacrifice of our commercial interests. They may advise your President to make a treaty that will not only sacrifice all your commercial interests, but throw prostrate your bill of rights. Does he fear that their ships will outnumber ours on the ocean, or that nations whose interest comes in contact with ours, in the progress of their guilt, will perpetrate the vilest expedients to exclude us from a participation in commercial advantages? Does he advise us, in order to avoid this evil, to adopt a Constitution, which will enable such nations to obtain their ends by the more easy mode of contaminating the principles of our senators? Sir, if our senators will not be corrupted, it will be because they will be good men, and not because the Constitution provides against corruption; for there is no real check secured in it, and the most abandoned and profligate acts may with impunity be committed by them. With respect to Maryland, what danger from thence? I know none. I have not heard of any hostility premeditated or committed. Nine tenths of the people have not heard of it. Those who are so happy as to be illumined have not informed their fellow-citizens of it. I am so valiant as to say that no danger can come, from that source, sufficient to make me abandon my republican principles. The honorable gentleman ought to have recollected that there were no tyrants in America, as there are in Europe. The citizens of republican borders are only terrible to tyrants. Instead of being dangerous to one another, they mutually support one another's liberties. We might be confederated with the adopting states without ratifying this system. No form of government renders a people more formidable...
.
...The experience of the mother country leads me to detest them. They have introduced their baneful influence into the administration, and destroyed one of the most beautiful systems that ever the world saw. Our forefathers enjoyed liberty there while that system was in its purity; but it is now contaminated by influence of every kind.
.
The style of the government (We, the people) was introduced perhaps to recommend it to the people at large; to those citizens who are to be levelled and degraded to the lowest degree; who are likened to a herd*; and who, by the operation of this blessed system, are to be transformed from respectable, independent citizens, to abject, dependent subjects or slaves. The honorable gentleman has anticipated what we are to be reduced to, by degradingly assimilating our citizens to a herd.
.
[Note *: * Governor Randolph had, cursorily, mentioned the word "herd" in his second speech.]
.
...Implication is dangerous, because it is unbounded: if it be admitted at all, and no limits be prescribed, it admits of the utmost extension. They say that every thing that is not given is retained. The reverse of the proposition is true by implication. They do not carry their implication so far when they speak of the general welfare--no implication when the sweeping clause comes. Implication is only necessary when the existence of privileges is in dispute. The existence of powers is sufficiently established. If we trust our dearest rights to implication, we shall be in a very unhappy situation.
.
Implication, in England, has been a source of dissension. There has been a war of implication between the king and people. For a hundred years did the mother country struggle under the uncertainty of implication. The people insisted that their rights were implied; the monarch denied the doctrine. The Bill of Rights, in some degree, terminated the dispute. By a bold implication, they said they had a right to bind us in all cases whatsoever. This constructive power we opposed, and successfully. Thirteen or fourteen years ago, the most important thing that could be thought of was to exclude the possibility of construction and implication. These, sir, were then deemed perilous. The first thing that was thought of was a bill of rights. We were not satisfied with your constructive, argumentative rights.
.
Mr. Henry then declared a bill of rights indispensably necessary; that a general positive provision should be inserted in the new system, securing to the states and the people every right which was not conceded to the general government; and that every implication should be done away. It being now late, he concluded by observing, that he would resume the subject another time.

Timeless Words of Wisdom....

"For defence against invasion, their number is as nothing; nor is it considered needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up, in time of peace, for that purpose. Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumstances where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point, and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens, as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading force, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but, if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defense until regulars may be engaged to relieve them. These considerations render it important that we should, at every session, continue to amend the defects which, from time to time, show themselves, in the laws for regulating the militia, until they are sufficiently perfect: nor should we now, or at any time, seperate, until we can say we have done every thing for the militia which we could do, were an enemy at our door."
.
- Thomas Jefferson, Presidents' Messages, Dec. 8th, 1801. Library of Congress - A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875
.
"Considering the extraordinary charater of the times in which we live, our attention should be fixed on the safety of our country. For a people who are free, and wish to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security. It is therefore incumbant on us, at every meeting, to revise the condition of the militia, and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion. Some of the states have paid a laudable attention to this object, but every degree of neglect is to be found among others. Congress alone having the power to produce an uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defence, the interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security, will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."
.
- Thomas Jefferson, Message of President Jefferson No.27, Nov. 8, 1808. 10th Congress, 2nd Session. [A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875. American State Papers. Library of Congress.]

Not an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, eh?

 Journal of the Senate of the United States of America,
.WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1789.
.“...On motion to amend article the fifth, by inserting these words, 'for the common defence,' next to the words 'bear arms:'
.
“It passed in the negative.
.
“On motion to strike out of this article, line the second, these words, 'the best,' and insert in lieu thereof 'necessary to the:'
.“It passed in the affirmative.
.“On motion, on article the fifth, to strike out the word 'fifth,' after 'article the,' and insert 'fourth,' and to amend the article to read as follows: 'A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
.
“It passed in the affirmative....”
.
Well now, THAT answers some questions, DOESN'T IT? Good-bye 'collective rights' theory!

SEDITION! TREASON!

"...."We deplore their ignorance, we lament their want of patriotism, and we abhor their disorganizing projects." Read, fellow-citizens, and reflect on this picture of federalism!
.
LEGISLATURE OF MASSACHUSETTS.
.
Senate, Thursday Feb. 2.
.
RESOLVES.
.
Resolved, That the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the 9th day of January in the present year, for enforcing the act laying an embargo and the several acts supplementary thereto, is, in the opinion of the Legislature, in many respects unjust, oppressive and unconstitutional, and NOT LEGALLY BINDING on the citizens of this state. But notwithstanding this opinion, in order finally to secure a certain and permanent relief, it is earnestly recommended to all parties aggrieved by the operation of this act, to abstain from forcible resistance, and to apply for their remedy, in a peaceable manner, to the LAWS of the Commonwealth...."
.
"...whenever any infringement of their rights shall be committed by any person or persons under color and pretence {Omitted text, 1w} authority derived from any officer of the United States....
.
"Also, that they be requested to attend particularly to any injuries and insults which may be committed or offered by any armed men* patrolling our streets by night, and that they make complaint against such in future for going armed, to the terror and disturbance of the people, and cause them to be arrested and punished according to law....
.
"...that I do consider this to be an act which directs a mortal blow at the liberties of my county--an act containing unconstitutional provisions--to which the people ARE NOT BOUND TO SUBMIT, and to which, in my opinion, they WILL NOT SUBMIT."....
.
"...and that all those who shall so assist in enforcing upon others the arbitrary and unconstitutional provisions of this act, ought to be considered as enemies to the constitution of the United States and of this state, and hostile to the liberties of the people....
.
* Officers executing the embargo laws.
.
Wow! Massachusettes defying the Federal government, and arresting the enforcement minions....ah...I mean agents? Who would have thought? They haven't changed much, as far as being terrified of arms though, have they?

TEXAS MEETING IN NASHVILLE

"That as early as the year 1821, the then Republic of Mexico invited emigrants from the United States, to settle in the province of Texas, then a wilderness, overrun by various tribes of Indians, whom the government either wanted the will or power to hold in subjection; and to whose warlike and marauding spirit, the border towns and settlements of Mexico were, and, for a great many years had been, constant objects of murder and plunder. To overcome this long existing evil, a population was sought capable of subduing, and, in effect, conquering the country from the savage foes of the Mexican claimants. They had no people fitted for the object. By colonization laws and contracts, strong inducements were held out to emigrants from these United States..."
.
"To a people dependent to a great extent upon the rifle for subsistence, and who were surrounded by the most powerful and war-like Nations of Indians on this continent, who, had the colonists been disarmed, would have slaughtered them like the helpless herd, and exterminated the colony without giving the party of the dictator further trouble, nothing could be more shocking than to be deprived of their arms. The consequence need hardly be told. Instant and universal revolt followed of course.--The colonists, with the proscribed rifles in their hands, met Gen. Cos midway...."
.
My, my how times have certainly changed.....

To The Public, "from whose person a pistol fell in open court", Feb. 22, 1855

(Click image to read article).

NEW ORLEANS, February 14, 1862

(Click on pic to view fullsize)

Dear Sir:
The accompanying address to the people of Louisiana has been prepared for the purpose of inducing them to deliver up their arms to the use of the State. I wish it read to such persons as it is likely to produce a good effect upon. I beg you to act in this matter as my agent. Collect all the firearms you can, and forward them to me at New Orleans. I most urgently request you, as a good and reliable citizen, to proceed promptly and earnestly to this work, and to send to me immediately every gun you may obtain.

.
You will give a receipt to every one who delivers you a gun, which will bind me to return the same in the like condition in which I receive it, or to pay full value for it. To every gun attach a card with the name of the person to whom it belongs, and the parish in which he resides.

.
Your obedient servant,

.

Tho. Q. Moore
Governor.

.

Wow, what a change from the current situation, eh? First he asks politely. Second, he promises return or payment. And third, he admits he's a SERVANT.

.

That's odd, I don't see anything about a background check in there at all....

'Polity of the Puritans'

"...Nevertheless, with all these defects, the colony was admirably governed in the main. One great right of freemen, the right of bearing arms, a highly necessary right to men planted suddenly among wild beasts and savages, was certainly not taken from the people. On the contrary, the government took care that all should be duly trained to self-defence. There is no man who bears a head, says Wood, (New Englands Prospect, 1639,) but bears military arms; even boys of fourteen years of age are practised with men in military discipline every three weeks. And they practised to some effect, as the records of the time prove, and as the Pequods learned to their cost...."
.
- John Lothrop Motley, (1814–1897). 'Polity of the Puritans'. (Concerning early colonial times). [The North American review. Vol. 69, Issue 145, Oct. 1849]. Son of Thomas Motley, born in Dorchester, Mass. Graduated Harvard in 1831. American historian, and briefly a Secretary of Legation to Russia.
.
That's odd, could have sworn there was a guy who had written a book a little while back, (Michael Bellesiles's Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture), claming that very few of the colonist's had guns. And that gun ownership was even rare in early America. Mr. Motley certainly seems to refute that, doesn't he?

THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN FEDERAL AND LOCAL AUTHORITY...

The following is an excerpt from an article by Mr. Stephen A. Douglas. The main thrust of the article has to do with the unfortunate topic of slavery. However, Mr. Douglas gives an excellent brief history on the colonies, and early Condfederated and Constitutional American governments.
(The majority of the main article can be read by clicking on the link in the headline).
.
...If judicial authority were deemed necessary to give force to principles so eminently just in themselves, and which form the basis of our entire political system, such authority may be found in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred Scott case. In that case the Court say:
.
“This brings us to examine by what provision of the Constitution the present Federal Government, under its delegated and restricted powers, is authorized to acquire territory outside of the original limits of the United States, and what powers it may exercise therein over the person or property of a citizen of the United states, while it remains a Territory, and until it shall be admitted as one of the States of the Union.
.
"There is certainly no power given by the Constitution to the Federal Government to establish or maintain Colonies, bordering on the United States or at a distance, to be ruled and governed at its own pleasure; nor to enlarge its territorial limits in any way except by the admission of new States.
.
"The power to expand the territory of the United States by the admission of new States is plainly given; and in the construction of this power by all the departments of the Government, it has been held to authorize the acquisition of territory, not fit for admission at the time, but to be admitted as soon as its population and situation would entitle it to admission. It is acquired to become a State, and not to be held as a Colony and governed by Congress with absolute authority; and as the propriety of admitting a new State is committed to the sound discretion of Congress, the power to acquire territory for that purpose, to be held by the United States until it is in a suitable condition to become a State upon an equal footing with the other States, must rest upon the same discretion.”
.
Having determined the question that the power to acquire territory for the purpose of enlarging our territorial limits and increasing the number of States is included within the power to admit new States and conferred by the same clause of the Constitution, the Court proceed to say that “the power to acquire necessarily carries with it the power to preserve and apply to the purposes for which it was acquired”. And again, referring to a former decision of the same Court in respect to the power of Congress to institute governments for the Territories, the Court say:
.
“The power stands firmly on the latter alternative put by the Court that is, as the inevitable consequence of the right to acquire territory”.The power to acquire territory, as well as the right, in the language of Mr. Madison, to institute temporary governments for the new States arising therein (or Territorial governments, as they are now called), having been traced to that provision of the Constitution which provides for the admission of new States, the Court proceed to consider the nature and extent of the power of Congress over the people of the Territories:“All we mean to say on this point is, that, as there is no express regulation in the Constitution defining the power which the general Government may exercise over the person or property of a citizen in a Territory thus acquired, the Court must necessarily look to the provisions and principles of the Constitution, and its distribution of powers, for the rules and principles by which its decision must be governed.
.
“Taking this rule to guide us, it may be safely assumed that citizens of the United States, who emigrate to a Territory belonging to the people of the United States, can not be ruled as mere colonists, dependent upon the will of the general Government, and to be governed by any laws it may think proper to impose. . . . The Territory being a part of the United States, the Government and the citizen both enter it under the authority of the Constitution, with their respective rights defined and marked out; and the Federal Government can exercise no power over his person or property beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved.”
.
Hence, inasmuch as the Constitution has conferred on the Federal Government no right to interfere with the property, domestic relations, police regulations, or internal polity of the people of the Territories, it necessarily follows, under the authority of the Court, that Congress can rightfully exercise no such power over the people of the Territories. For this reason alone, the Supreme Court were authorized and compelled to pronounce the eighth section of the Act approved March 6, 1820 (commonly called the Missouri Compromise), inoperative and void there being no power delegated to Congress in the Constitution authorizing Congress to prohibit slavery in the Territories.
.
In the course of the discussion of this question the Court gave an elaborate exposition of the structure, principles, and powers of the Federal Government; showing that it possesses no powers except those which are delegated, enumerated, and defined in the Constitution; and that all other powers are either prohibited altogether or are reserved to the States, or to the people. In order to show that the prohibited, as well as the delegated powers are enumerated and defined in the Constitution, the Court enumerated certain powers which can not be exercised either by Congress or by the Territorial Legislatures, or by any other authority whatever, for the simple reason that they are forbidden by the Constitution.
.
Some persons who have not examined critically the opinion of the Court in this respect have been induced to believe that the slavery question was included in this class of prohibited powers, and that the Court had decided in the Dred Scott case that the Territorial Legislature could not legislate in respect to slave property the same as all other property in the Territories. A few extracts from the opinion of the Court will correct this error, and show clearly the class of powers to which the Court referred, as being forbidden alike to the Federal Government, to the States, and to the Territories. The Court say:
.
“A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will illustrate this proposition. For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.
.
“Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. . . . So too, it will hardly be contended that Congress could by law quarter a soldier in a house in a Territory without the consent of the owner in a time of peace; nor in time of var but in a manner prescribed by law. Nor could they by law forfeit the property of a citizen in a Territory who was convicted of treason, for a longer period than the life of the person convicted, nor take private property for public use without just compensation.
.
“The powers over persons and property, of which we speak, are not only not granted to Congress, but are in express terms denied, and they are forbidden to exercise them. And this prohibition is not confined to the States, but the words are general, and extend to the whole territory over which the Constitution gives it power to legislate, including those portions of it remaining under Territorial Governments, as well as that covered by States.
.
“It is a total absence of power, every where within the dominion of the United States, and places the citizens of a Territory, so far as these rights are concerned, on the same footing with citizens of the States, and guards them as firmly and plainly against any inroads which the general Government might attempt, under the plea of implied or incidental powers. And if Congress itself can not do this if it is beyond the powers conferred on the Federal Government it will be admitted, we presume, that it could not authorize a Territorial government to exercise them. It could confer no power on any local government, established by its authority, to violate the provisions of the Constitution.”
.
Nothing can be more certain than that the Court were here speaking only of forbidden powers, which were denied alike to Congress, to the State Legislatures, and to the Territorial Legislatures, and that the prohibition extends every where within the dominion of the United States, applicable equally to States and Territories, as well as to the United States....

Yale, you say? Well, can you imagine that!

New Englander and Yale review
Vol. 21, Issue 81, October 1862
State Rights

.

"...Take, for instance, the right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment says, “it shall not be infringed.” May it still be infringed by everybody except Congress, and Congress not bound to protect it? “Nor shall any person be compelled. . . . . . to be a witness against himself?” Is the whole duty of the Government, in regard to this part of the Constitution, which they were appointed to execute, merely to abstain from violating it themselves, though they should allow it to be violated every day, by subjects owing allegiance to the same Constitution?

.
"The second and sixth amendments seem almost necessarily to be applied to the states by their terms. If a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state, it is certainly as necessary that the right to bear arms should not be infringed by the state itself, as by any body else...."

.

**********

.

New Englander and Yale Review
Vol. 25, Issue 94, Jan. 1866
Government in the United States

.

"...It is a limitation of the powers of the national government to the uses for which they were granted and a prohibition of their being perverted to the infraction of the just rights of the States or of the civil liberty of the people. It is one of a large number of amendments which were passed to meet the attacks made on the Constitution, and quiet the fears created by these attacks, that the government of the United States would absorb all power, and becoming a consolidated despotism would overthrow the State organizations, and subvert the liberties of the people. These amendments were intended to furnish a rule of construction, being specific declarations that power should not be assumed nor enlarged by any construction to take away the rights of the States or the rights of the people. The tenth article is of the same general import as the other amendments, which declare the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not he construed to deny, or disparage others retained by the people. These are all manifestly limitations of power in favor of civil liberty, not reservations of sovereignty. The government of the United States is one of limitations, prohibitions, and duties imposed, for the observance of which the Constitution has provided every possible security. But any doctrine suggesting remedies outside of its provisions is dangerous and revolutionary...."

.

Hmmmm, wonder what happened? The above opinions seem to be in total contradiction to what we are witnessing today, don't they? Or, is it just me?

David Codrea from The War on Guns: "Domestic Enemies"--An Interview With Matthew Bracken

Matthew is online at The War on Guns answering questions about his new, must read, book.

9/11 Flag Flying

Please join us in this FLY THE FLAG campaign and PLEASE forward this immediately to everyone in your address book asking them to also forward it.
.
We have a little less than two weeks and counting to get the word out all across this great land and into every community in the United States of America. If you forward this email to least 11 people and each ofThose people do the same...you get the idea.
.
THE PROGRAM IS THIS:
.
On Monday, September 11th, 2006, an American flag should be displayed outside every home, apartment, office, and store in the United States.
.
Every individual should make it their duty to display an American flag on this fifth anniversary of our country's worst tragedy. We do this in honor of those who lost their lives on 9/11, their families, friends and loved ones who continue to endure the pain, and those who today are fighting at home and abroad to preserve our cherished freedoms.
.
In the days, weeks and months following 9/11, our country was bathed in American flags as citizens mourned the incredible losses and stood shoulder-to-shoulder against terrorism. Sadly, those flags have all but disappeared. Our patriotism pulled us through some tough times and it shouldn't take another attack to galvanize us in solidarity. Our American flag is the fabric of our country and together we can prevail over terrorism of all kinds.
.
Action Plan: So, here's what we need you to do...
.
(1) Forward this to everyone you know (at least 11 people).
.
Please don't be the one to break this chain. Take a moment to think back to how you felt on 9/11 and let those sentiments guide you.
.
(2) Fly an American flag of any size on 9/11. Honestly, Americans should fly the flag year-round, but if you don't, then at least make it a priority on this day.
.
Thank you for your participation.
.
God Bless You and God Bless America!