Fear 8

Ask yourself what you'd have done if you had been herded and unarmed and on any one of those four planes.

And no doubt you'll soon be hearing again how and why your public servants can "protect"you way better than you can. Diane Feinstein, Joe Lieberman, John McCain,Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Brady, Rosie O'Donnell - all of them smug and protected by their personal armed guards, many of these guards paid for by your tax dollars -will still be trying to pass laws to disarm you and to strip you of your right to self-defense, to make you more dependent on the kind of "security" that permitted the kamikaze scum who declared war on us yesterday to do what they did.

"A senior U.S. intelligence official told MSNBC.com that mobile phone communications from Flight 93 indicate that three passengers overpowered the hijackers but were unable to maintain control of the plane. The official said that U.S. counterintelligence experts are speculating that the hijackers intended to turn the plane around and crash it into another target but were thwarted by the passengers.

"On that plane, a pilot secretly turned on the microphone, allowing passengers to hear everything that was being said by the terrorists - a warning that may have prompted some passengers to attempt an act of heroism that presumably saved another national landmark."

Who knows how many lives these doomed brave souls saved?

These brave souls who refused to be herded.

Bless them, and pray for their families and friends. They are heroes!

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]

'To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them. (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)

"Here, every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offense..." -- John Adams - Opening statement as defense counsel for British soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre in 1770; from the "Legal Papers of John Adams", Butterfield and Zobel; 1965.

The Founders even recognized the rights of their enemies at the time - British soldiers - to have a right to arm themselves - "for their defense, not for offense."

Government Response to the Attack on America! What is our government's muted response? What is an appropriate and moral response? Do we escalate an isolated terrorist attack against our country into an all out military assault against Islamic strongholds, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Iraq and Iran? Are we simply reacting, or are we effectively planning an appropriate and moral response?

America and its allies have the military power to annilihate an entire nation without the use of nuclear weapons, killing innocent women and children as we did in Iraq. I would not approve of an instant replay of that conflict which accomplished nothing except a huge show of force. We even came short of putting Saddam Hussein out of business and left him in charge of a devastated country. What was the purpose for this?

Do we punish everyone who is Muslin for the act of a single terrorist, even a network of terrorists? What is the backlash against innocent Muslims who do not advocate violence? We must not tolerate any expressions of anger or violence that targets innocent people to ease our personal fury and satisfies our vengeance. What will our national and personal conscience allow? How will justice be served?

Clinton was supportive of whatever President Bush decided in the aftermath of the attack. He also said, "The most important thing is we all have to be stong, calm, good Americans now, and rally behind the president and support the actions he will doubtlessly take..the main thing is, we must send a clear and unambiguous message to the world that the people of America are 100 percent united and we're going to follow our leaders and support whatever action Bush takes."

I am watchful of Clinton's comment and the implications. Does this mean that is we see a change of government under Bush's leadership we're all supposed to line up behind it and be good, obedient Americans? Does this mean if Bush suspends our civil liberties on behalf of the crusade to destroy or punish the terrorists who perpetrated this event, that we should agree? If the United Nations troops come pouring into the United States as "security forces" we're supposed to accept these conditions as necessary for our "national security."What is the price of security, and how much freedom are we willing to pay?

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del commented, "It is unfortunately a reality check for the 21st century. The whole purpose of terrorism is to demoralize Americans and make them doubt their government and institutions."

Joint Chiefs Chairman Henry H. Shelton vowed at a Pentagon briefing, "I have no intention of discussing what comes next. But make no mistake about it, your armed forces are ready."