Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter...

The Gun is Civilization

by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

Message From "ColdFusion":

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

This is long.. but every word is from the heart.

I've spent the last 25 years of my life waiting for things to change for the better. They have not. In fact, things have only become worse. You all know exactly where I'm coming from.

Year by year, the American people are picked apart, lied to, robbed, enslaved and have had their Constitutional rights systematically stolen.

I'm a U.S. Marine. I've been saying for over two decades that a revolution is coming - and I didn't mean the one we have here. I mean a bloody one. A revolution where my fellow Americans finally reach the melting point, when former and currently active military join together to take the country back by force. Where the common citizen is finally asked, "Will you take up arms to regain your rights?".

Now I see differently. In the past months I have been given an entirely different outlook on the future. I see my fellow citizens, people with or without military backgrounds or affiliations to compel them to do so, joining the ranks of this freedom revolution.

As a person with a military background, if I look at this logistically there is no way to beat it. Armies need commanders, soldiers need orders, troops need training and supplies. But more importantly, in a time of conflict, those soldiers need a target to hit.

This revolution has to be the worst fear of anyone who would think to oppose it. It has no 'leaders'. It has no tactical disadvantages to exploit. You cant point a gun at an idea. You cant put crosshairs on principals.

Some may argue that Ron Paul is the 'leader'. I disagree, and I think he would too. Ron is simply the public voice of the millions who are on this massive and ever-growing freight train.

If Ron were to step aside, for any reason, someone else would undoubtedly take the podium in his stead... but here's the best part - no one 'has' to do that. This revolution can continue gaining momentum and influence, members and followers, attention and coverage without a 'voice' to do it with.

I'm reminded of the masked faces in 'V', ("V" for Vendetta) standing together outside parliament (ok, it's a movie, but it fits here). None of those people spoke a single word. They had no faces. They had no speeches. They had no 'disobedient nature' about them at all. Yet anyone who watched that movie knew exactly what they were saying - and could almost feel the influence of that group in the air.

Yes, that was fictional, but the 'feeling' provided by that scene is the same thing I get when I work toward the same goals that all of you are working toward - freedom and liberty the way it SHOULD be.

You cannot put a gag on the truth. You can try, and if those attempting to spread that truth are few, you may succeed. But when you've got millions already, and numbers growing by the tens of thousands on a continual basis, it is no longer possible.

An author once wrote; "There is no such thing as art, because art is mankind's attempt at holding a mirror up to either nature or imagination - and there isn't a mirror big enough to do that". In that same context - there is no 'gag' big enough.

The mirror, in our case, is the shroud of doubt that the powers that be, mainstream media and naysayers would try to cover us with.

It is the veil of propaganda and disregard that is draped across the televisions, newspapers, magazines and airwaves of the world, used to keep the population from hearing the message.

But the message is quickly becoming to vast, too loud, too obvious and too thought provoking for these would-be oppressors to contain any longer. The power of the truth, the power of right, and the power of true patriotism are far greater than any amount of money, bandwidth, propaganda or wool pulled over the eyes of those who could see.

This revolution has gone from being considered a "side show of weirdos", to an 'internet following', to a 'group of citizens', to a 'nationwide freedom revolution' in a shorter time than I think even those who stand in opposition to it ever dreamed. It has demonstrated the will, ambition, determination, spirit, and unwavering loyalty that many politicians and corporations could only dream of obtaining from those who would 'follow' them.

Normally, when a faceless, headless, runaway stampede of ever-expanding revenues and participants takes place - it is usually something the government came up with that is about to cost the taxpayers a lot of money. Those that are trying to gain access to the whip handles which could control us all have never seen anything like this before, and they are unsure of how to stop it.

They use their own 'tried and true' methods, such as media blackouts and (potentially) election fraud - but now there are too many eyes and ears watching them.. waiting for the slightest hint of impropriety.. ready to stand right next to the perpetrators and yell, 'Caught Ya!' when they attempt the subversive.

These warmongering, greedy, power hungry maniacs have never had to deal with the scrutiny that is being placed on their every move in such a public arena. They are unprepared, and they are scared. So scared that they have already slipped up during this election year. They have managed to 'cover their rears' with the mainstream thus far.. 'accident', 'human error', 'oops'. But they don't have any other methods than those they already use - so they will be forced to use them again, and they will.

When they do - this revolution will be right there to catch them. The 'oops' defense can only work so many times before it is no longer believed by even those who currently 'believe whatever MSM tells them'. Every time they slip up, the revolution gains more momentum, increases its numbers, and thereby increases it's ability to cover these subversive acts.

Eventually we will reach the tipping point.. and I think that will be sooner than later. Already this movement has grown by leaps and bounds. When it first started new patriots joined every month.. then every week.. then every day.. and as those numbers grew, so did the coverage from within, so that this freedom revolution grows every hour, potentially every minute. Not much longer and it will be growing at 'every second' rates.

This snowball cannot be stopped. I'm sure there are think tanks out there right now trying to devise a way to thwart our efforts - and every time they emerge from their meetings with new plans to present to their 'masters', they are met with the phrase "Go back and try again, it's even bigger than before".

That is the power of freedom. That is the natural outcome when real liberty is at stake. It takes a while to get started, but once it does it is that freight train that keeps being brought up - you can't stop it. The only thing that can stop that train is the train itself. It either puts on the brakes, shuts off the fuel, or steers itself into a wall.

THIS train has no one manning the brake lever, because it has no brakes.

THIS train has no one watching the fuel gauge, because it runs on principal - not energy.

THIS train has no one steering it, because there is only one path to freedom - and that doesn't need a track to run on.

To my fellow revolutionary warriors - I salute you, and look forward to the great and prosperous future we are about to embark on. I look forward to taking the ultimate voyage with you all - the voyage of liberty, freedom and returning Constitutional rights to all who live in this country!

CF

Congress Moves To Seize Control Of All U.S. Waters

Wetlands (HR 2421) Bill Gives Corps Control Over Your Property

Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 expansion of power. Congress considering expanding the power of the Clean Water Act of 1972 to include all waters of the United States and not limit it to navigable waters as is currently the law under two Supreme Court Decisions. This is a massive threat to all private property in America.  It also threatens the use of Federal land. Under the name "clean water" HR 2421 would give the Corps of Engineers and the Federal Government massive additional regulatory powers that supercede local and state government. People may be tempted to jump in favor of "clean water" not realizing they are trading away control over their land. Besides private property, it threatens grazing, forestry, mining and many other uses on Federal land. HR 2421 is the biggest threat to private property since CARA and actually affects far more land and people. (It's real name is the Clean Water Restoration Act but it has very little to do with clean water or restoration.  It is mostly about land use control and expanding the power and reach of the Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act of 1972. ) What the bill supporters are doing is using the term "Clean Water," which everybody wants, as a tool to pass legislation (HR 2421) that is really about land use control and has little or nothing to do with clean water.  It is a huge rural land grab.  Their target is land use control over all lands, both urban and rural. What it really does is give the Corps of Engineers control over nearly all private property in America by changing the definition of "wetlands" under the Clean Water Act of 1972 vastly expanding the regulatory reach of the Corps of Engineers over private property.

HR 2421 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session H. R. 2421

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify the jurisdiction of the United States over waters of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 22, 2007

Mr. OBERSTAR (for himself, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. EHLERS, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. PLATTS, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. COHEN, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. KIRK, Mr. NADLER, Mr. WALSH of New York, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. CASTLE, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. FILNER, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. CAPUANO, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. KAGEN, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. CUMMINGS, Ms. CARSON, Mr. MCNERNEY, Mr. ARCURI, Mr. CARNAHAN, Ms. NORTON, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. KILDEE, Ms. HOOLEY, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. WAXMAN, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. DOYLE, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. OLVER, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. HONDA, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. CHANDLER, Mr. CROWLEY, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Ms. CASTOR, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. SPRATT, Mr. CLAY, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. WYNN, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. SIRES, Mr. HODES, Mr. STARK, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. DELAHUNT, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut, Mr. KANJORSKI, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Ms. SUTTON, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. HOLT, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. FARR, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. ALLEN, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. GORDON of Tennessee, Ms. BEAN, Ms. SOLIS, Mr. KLEIN of Florida, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. WU, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. WEINER, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Ms. CLARKE, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. DICKS, Mr. KIND, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. WELCH of Vermont, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. COOPER, Mr. RUSH, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. STUPAK, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Ms. WATERS, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Mr. YARMUTH, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. INSLEE, Ms. LEE, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. RANGEL, Ms. DELAURO, and Mr. LYNCH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify the jurisdiction of the United States over waters of the United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are as follows:

(1) To reaffirm the original intent of Congress in enacting the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (86 Stat. 816) to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States.

(2) To clearly define the waters of the United States that are subject to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).

(3) To provide protection to the waters of the United States to the fullest extent of the legislative authority of Congress under the Constitution.

(3) In enacting amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in 1972 and through subsequent amendment, including the Clean Water Act of 1977 (91 Stat. 1566) and the Water Quality Act of 1987 (101 Stat. 7), Congress established the national objective of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States and recognized that achieving this objective requires uniform, minimum national water quality and aquatic ecosystem protection standards to restore and maintain the natural structures and functions of the aquatic ecosystems of the United States. Since the 1970s, the definition of `waters of the United States' in the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers have properly established the scope of waters to be protected under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) in order to meet such national objective.

(4) Water is transported through interconnected hydrologic cycles, and the pollution, impairment, or destruction of any part of an aquatic system may affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other parts of the aquatic system.

(5) Protection of intrastate waters, along with other waters of the United States, is necessary to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all waters in the United States.

(6) The regulation of discharges of pollutants into interstate and intrastate waters is an integral part of the comprehensive clean water regulatory program of the United States.

(7) Small and intermittent streams, including ephemeral, and seasonal streams, and their start reaches comprise the majority of all stream and river miles in the conterminous United States. These waters reduce the introduction of pollutants to larger rivers and streams, affect the life cycles of aquatic organisms and wildlife, and impact the flow of higher order streams during floods.

(8) The pollution or other degradation of waters of the United States, individually and in the aggregate, has a substantial relation to and effect on interstate commerce.

(9) Protection of the waters of the United States, including intrastate waters, is necessary to prevent significant harm to interstate commerce and sustain a robust system of interstate commerce in the future.

(10) Waters, including wetlands, provide protection from flooding, and draining or filling wetlands and channelizing or filling streams, including intrastate wetlands and streams, can cause or exacerbate flooding, placing a significant burden on interstate commerce.

(11) Millions of people in the United States depend on wetlands and other waters of the United States to filter water and recharge surface and subsurface drinking water supplies, protect human health, and create economic opportunity. Source water protection areas containing one or more small or intermittent streams provide water to public drinking water supplies serving more than 110,000,000 Americans.

(12) Millions of people in the United States enjoy recreational activities that depend on intrastate waters, such as waterfowl hunting, bird watching, fishing, and photography, and those activities and associated travel generate billions of dollars of income each year for the travel, tourism, recreation, and sporting sectors of the economy of the United States.

(13) Activities that result in the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States are commercial or economic in nature. More than 40 percent, or 14,800, facilities with permits issued under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, including industrial facilities and municipal sewage treatment systems, discharge into small or intermittent streams.

(14) States have the responsibility and right to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution of waters, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act respects the rights and responsibilities of States by preserving for States the ability to manage permitting, grant, and research programs to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, and to establish standards and programs more protective of a State's waters than is provided under Federal standards and programs.

(15) Protecting the quality of and regulating activities affecting the waters of the United States is a necessary and proper means of implementing treaties to which the United States is a party, including treaties protecting species of fish, birds, and wildlife.

(16) Protecting the quality of and regulating activities affecting the waters of the United States is a necessary and proper means of protecting Federal land, including hundreds of millions of acres of parkland, refuge land, and other land under Federal ownership and the wide array of waters encompassed by that land.

(17) Protecting the quality of and regulating activities affecting the waters of the United States is necessary to protect Federal land and waters from discharges of pollutants and other forms of degradation.

SEC. 4. DEFINITION OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES.

Section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended--

(1) by striking paragraph (7);

(2) by redesignating paragraphs (8) through (24) as paragraphs (7) through (23), respectively; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

`(24) WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES- The term `waters of the United States' means all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting these waters, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution.'.

SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) is amended--

(1) by striking `navigable waters of the United States' each place it appears and inserting `waters of the United States';

(2) in section 304(l)(1) by striking `NAVIGABLE WATERS' in the heading and inserting `WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES'; and

(3) by striking `navigable waters' each place it appears and inserting `waters of the United States'.

SEC. 6. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

Nothing in this Act (including any amendment made by this Act) shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary of the Army or the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (as the case may be) under the following provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.):

(1) Section 402(l)(1), relating to discharges composed entirely of agricultural return flows.

(2) Section 402(l)(2), relating to discharges of stormwater runoff from oil, gas, and mining operations.

(3) Section 404(f)(1)(A), relating to discharges of dredged or fill materials from normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities.

(4) Section 404(f)(1)(B), relating to discharges of dredged or fill materials for the purpose of maintenance of currently serviceable structures.

(5) Section 404(f)(1)(C), relating to discharges of dredged or fill materials for the purpose of construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches and maintenance of drainage ditches.

(6) Section 404(f)(1)(D), relating to discharges of dredged or fill materials for the purpose of construction of temporary sedimentation basins on construction sites.

(7) Section 404(f)(1)(E), relating to discharges of dredged or fill materials for the purpose of construction or maintenance of farm roads or forest roads or temporary roads for moving mining equipment.

(8) Section 404(f)(1)(F), relating to discharges of dredged or fill materials resulting from activities with respect to which a State has an approved program under section 208(b)(4) of such Act.