I sat down one afternoon, after visiting a gun show in which I purchased a Mosin Nagant 91/30 and a Springfield XD 9, to contemplate what firearms to purchase next. There are a lot of different ones that I would like to get, but then I got to thinking about what would be best to own in case the worst case scenario(s) were to happen. The worst case scenarios would be: defend against a foreign government, defend against a tyrannical US government, defend against others due to total civilization collapse.
In the case of a foreign government invasion, I had to figure out what caliber ammo they would use. Most likely the arms used will be Russian or Chinese made, so that would mean: 9mm, 7.62x39, 5.45x39, and some 7.62x54R used in sniping. I have seen some reports that the Chinese have developed some other calibers, but the ammo has not become commercially available so it would mean that they are out of the picture.
In the case of a tyrannical US government, we would be looking at: 9mm, .45, 5.56 NATO (.223), 7.62 NATO (.308), and .50 BMG. There would be some .338 Lapua also for sniping. I also understand that there is some 6mm caliber used also as an intermediate round in an attempt to combine the best attributes from the .223 and .308 in a single round.
In the case of a total melt down of civilization, well... there is no expected standard round so anything goes, but I would still lean toward those that have the largest base: 9mm, .45, .223, 7.62x39, .308, 7.62x54R.
Now your probably wondering why I would be interested in that info, because how would you keep your weapons fed in these situations once you have used up what you have stock piled? In the first 2 situations you won't be able to go to the store to buy more and the 3rd will most likely have stores looted. In the first 2 situations, I would grab the ammo from the dead and maybe raid the enemy's ammo stockpiles. I would also attempt to stockpile the weapons that are taken off the enemy also, for use against them or for parts.
So what firearms will I be putting on my list? Well, I want ones that will be reliable in almost all conditions, easily maintained, etc. Oh yeah, I also want them as as inexpensive as possible. As I have said, I already have a good reliable 9mm and a reliable 7.62x54R (although it is bolt action).
For a .45, I am going to go with a 1911 due to that being the most common firearm in that caliber. I have heard good things about Rock Island Armory and Para has come out with a nice low cost one also. Wouldn't mind getting a mill and making my own.
.223 is another caliber that is an easy one to figure out a weapon for it, the AR15. Why? It has the biggest parts base, so you could scavenge parts easily.
7.62x39 would be AKs and SKSs. Both of which are extremely reliable, but I would lean more to the AK as it has a larger base like the AR does.
Deciding on a weapon for the venerable .308 comes up with a lot of good firearms. There is the AR10, but there aren't a lot of them out there. I instantly think of 3 battle proven rifles in that caliber; the M1A, the FAL and the HK G3. While I respect the M1A (would love to own one), it is not the most affordable weapon. So that means I have a choice between the FAl and the G3. I am at a stale mate on which I want to get, I'd like both. I have seen some parts kits for the FAL at decent prices so I may get that.
While I already have a weapon that handles the 7.62x54R, I would love to get a Dragunov SVD but the price is out of reach. I am considering getting a Romanian PSL just to have a semi auto in that caliber. While a lot of people have complained about this weapon, it isn't a true sniper rifle and it does shoot respectably. It can be improved to shoot a little better also.
One other weapon that I will be adding is a 12 gauge shotgun.
I would love to add a .50 BMG along with a few other weapons, but they will be on the back burner until I get my basic armory collected (unless I get a steal of a deal on one of these).
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
New toys
So I picked up some new "toys" over the past month and can't wait to take them out and see how they handle. I disassembled the Mosin-Nagant and removed any traces of cosmoline I could find using Purple Power. I took the stock up to the attic to try to see if any cosmoline would sweat out of the wood, a little did but not much. The ammo I have for it is corrosive, but that is not a big deal to me as I always clean my guns after I shoot them. I am just waiting to pick up an ultrasonic cleaner so that I can toss the bolt into it and get any powder cleaned out of areas I can't normally reach.
I also plan to disassemble the P22 and toss it into the ultrasonic cleaner as I bought the gun used and it looks like it could use a deep cleaning. I need to order a few minor things for the P22 that normally comes with the gun but wasn't included with this one.
I am looking for a scope and rings for the 10/22, I don't want to do a lot with this gun as it will be used for exposing the kids to true firearms (along with the P22). I may pick up another 10/22 to customize at some point in the future.
The XD now has 2 additional mags (2 for the range and 2 for defensive rounds), I am looking at the Cross Breed Super Tuck holster for concealed and want to get a tactical drop leg holster for when I feel like or am forced to open carry.
I may end up doing some mods on all my guns but for now they will be bone stock.
I also plan to disassemble the P22 and toss it into the ultrasonic cleaner as I bought the gun used and it looks like it could use a deep cleaning. I need to order a few minor things for the P22 that normally comes with the gun but wasn't included with this one.
I am looking for a scope and rings for the 10/22, I don't want to do a lot with this gun as it will be used for exposing the kids to true firearms (along with the P22). I may pick up another 10/22 to customize at some point in the future.
The XD now has 2 additional mags (2 for the range and 2 for defensive rounds), I am looking at the Cross Breed Super Tuck holster for concealed and want to get a tactical drop leg holster for when I feel like or am forced to open carry.
I may end up doing some mods on all my guns but for now they will be bone stock.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Are environmentalists (environuts) more dangerous to the environment
While watching tv the other night I was inundated by a certain commercial about the number of plastic water bottles the US uses in a year. This stirred some thoughts that I have gradually accumulated over the years, so I decided to share them.
I recall back when I was younger, there were calls for grocery stores to move from paper bags to plastic. The claims were that we were killing trees and that we could/would recycle the plastic bags, which would be better for the environment. Lets flash forward to today; we have those same people complaining about the number of plastic bags ending up in landfills. What did they expect, for a number of years there were no recycling programs in many areas. Never mind the fact that paper bags are recyclable along with the fact that they are also biodegradable if they end up in landfills.
I also remember the move away from glass bottles to plastic bottles for soft drinks, etc. Again the claim was recycling. The thing that I couldn't understand is that the glass bottles could be cleaned and refilled (to me that is better than recycling) if there was nothing wrong with them and the glass could be melted down and made into new bottles as well as other things. Again, many areas of the country did/do not have recycling programs so we have bottles ending up in landfills. One other thing that I could not understand is that Michigan (where I grew up) would have a bottle deposit on soft drink and beer bottles, but nothing on water/juice/wine bottles. Why not, they will end up in landfills if they aren't recycled. It made no sense to me then nor does it now.
Environmentalists have called for moving to compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) to replace the bulbs that we have used for years. The claim was that they will help conserve energy, I will comment on that in a few minutes. The problem is that CFLs contain mercury inside the tubing. In some places if one of the bulbs break, you are forced to bring in a company to do hazmat type clean up at your own expense (see http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp). Maine has since stopped recommending that clean up be done by a company, but who knows what the more extreme states (CA, MA, etc.) will do.
Now let's touch on this whole notion of "conserving energy"; energy is not like water in a canteen, where as you use it you are getting closer to none being left. Once all the water is gone there is no more, so you conserve it to make it last until you are able to refill the canteen. Nor is it like what you get from a battery, where there is a limited amount. The electricity in your home comes from plants (factories) that continually produce electricity, let me repeat that, they continually produce electricity. Yes there is a limit of how much they can produce, but once the energy is used there is more available. Should we be efficient with our energy use, absolutely. Should we conserve energy, unless you are using batteries for your power source it is impossible to.
Environmentalists also pushed for hydroelectric power, banning nuclear plants, wind power, etc. Now there are complaints that hydroelectric power dams are endangering fish species, that wind turbines are killing birds and that nobody wants them in their "back yard", and now there is a push to move back towards nuclear power to move away from coal and fuel power.
To me the environmentalists have created more problems with their ideas than they have solved. I think that anytime one comes up with a "solution" to a problem, we should thoroughly scrutinize it considering what could happen if it is implemented.
I recall back when I was younger, there were calls for grocery stores to move from paper bags to plastic. The claims were that we were killing trees and that we could/would recycle the plastic bags, which would be better for the environment. Lets flash forward to today; we have those same people complaining about the number of plastic bags ending up in landfills. What did they expect, for a number of years there were no recycling programs in many areas. Never mind the fact that paper bags are recyclable along with the fact that they are also biodegradable if they end up in landfills.
I also remember the move away from glass bottles to plastic bottles for soft drinks, etc. Again the claim was recycling. The thing that I couldn't understand is that the glass bottles could be cleaned and refilled (to me that is better than recycling) if there was nothing wrong with them and the glass could be melted down and made into new bottles as well as other things. Again, many areas of the country did/do not have recycling programs so we have bottles ending up in landfills. One other thing that I could not understand is that Michigan (where I grew up) would have a bottle deposit on soft drink and beer bottles, but nothing on water/juice/wine bottles. Why not, they will end up in landfills if they aren't recycled. It made no sense to me then nor does it now.
Environmentalists have called for moving to compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) to replace the bulbs that we have used for years. The claim was that they will help conserve energy, I will comment on that in a few minutes. The problem is that CFLs contain mercury inside the tubing. In some places if one of the bulbs break, you are forced to bring in a company to do hazmat type clean up at your own expense (see http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp). Maine has since stopped recommending that clean up be done by a company, but who knows what the more extreme states (CA, MA, etc.) will do.
Now let's touch on this whole notion of "conserving energy"; energy is not like water in a canteen, where as you use it you are getting closer to none being left. Once all the water is gone there is no more, so you conserve it to make it last until you are able to refill the canteen. Nor is it like what you get from a battery, where there is a limited amount. The electricity in your home comes from plants (factories) that continually produce electricity, let me repeat that, they continually produce electricity. Yes there is a limit of how much they can produce, but once the energy is used there is more available. Should we be efficient with our energy use, absolutely. Should we conserve energy, unless you are using batteries for your power source it is impossible to.
Environmentalists also pushed for hydroelectric power, banning nuclear plants, wind power, etc. Now there are complaints that hydroelectric power dams are endangering fish species, that wind turbines are killing birds and that nobody wants them in their "back yard", and now there is a push to move back towards nuclear power to move away from coal and fuel power.
To me the environmentalists have created more problems with their ideas than they have solved. I think that anytime one comes up with a "solution" to a problem, we should thoroughly scrutinize it considering what could happen if it is implemented.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
"Health Care Reform"
I posted this as a note on my facebook page on 3/23/10 and I thought I would post it here:
The so called Health Care Reform bill that was recently signed is not about health care, it is about insurance and taxes (and student loans, what that has to do with health care or insurance I have no clue). There are some that I know that work in the health care industry and some of them are for the bill/law and others that are not. I decided to clear some things up for those that are for it and claim that they know what is going on. I will be providing links to articles to support my statements.
First, I would like to state that I feel that this bill/law is unconstitutional. The federal government has no constitutional duty to even be involved in this, the states are the ones that would be responsible for this. There are some that will claim that the General Welfare clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the government the power to do so, that is incorrect. The General Walfare clause only has to do with the power to collect taxes (excise, tariffs, etc) and spend money to carry out the duties of the federal government as enumerated by the U.S. Constitution (see http://law.jrank.org/pages/7116/General-Welfare.html). Seeing as those duties do not include health care, then that means that they passed an unconstitutional bill.
Now I would like to talk about impact on businesses. Caterpillar stated that the bill would cost it a 20% increase in insurance costs next year which would equal about $100 million, which would impact pay to employees/retirees/shareholders (see http://www.businessinsider.com/caterpillar-claims-health-care-reform-would-hit-them-for-100-million-2010-3). Small businesses will be impacted also, those that have 50 or more employees must provide insurance or face a fine of $750.00 to $2,000.00 per employee. One business owner stated that he will stay at 49 employees (see http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/business&id=7344877). That is not good for the employment numbers if business owners are going to decide to start limiting their employment numbers to keep their costs down because of forced compliance with insurance laws.
So how about some of the taxes, lets take a look at that (See http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ake7tOWwUT6E). There is going to be a 2.3% tax on the purchase of a wheelchair (isn't that used for health care?), drugmakers will pay a $3 billion fee annually which may get passed to consumers (that is supposed to help those that can't currently afford medicines?), people will be "fined" for not buying insurance if they have to choose between insurance or food/utilities/rent (that really helps out, not), there will be a 3.8% tax on rents/interest/capital gains/investments, out of pocket medical expenses will be raised from 7.5% to 10% of income before they are deductible (again it will impact many lower income people). The impact is that rents will rise affecting many low income people, your savings will be impacted in a time that we should be encouraging saving money, if you own a business you will be impacted due to capital gains from your business being profitable and worth more. This will not be good for the economy and will make it harder for those that can't get by or those that barely do to afford even the necessities of life.
The common sense thing to do would be for the federal government to stay out of it and have the states handle it. It could be done like Massachusetts did or some other way. There some that have made the statement that "we are required to have insurance to drive a car, why not be required to have health insurance?" Well, first of all there is no federal law that requires anyone to have car insurance in order to drive; that is required by the states. Secondly, car insurance is to protect others when you have an accident, health insurance only covers you (and your family if they are covered).
This is not the time we should be doing something like this, you don't fix an ailing economy by adding more problems to it.
The so called Health Care Reform bill that was recently signed is not about health care, it is about insurance and taxes (and student loans, what that has to do with health care or insurance I have no clue). There are some that I know that work in the health care industry and some of them are for the bill/law and others that are not. I decided to clear some things up for those that are for it and claim that they know what is going on. I will be providing links to articles to support my statements.
First, I would like to state that I feel that this bill/law is unconstitutional. The federal government has no constitutional duty to even be involved in this, the states are the ones that would be responsible for this. There are some that will claim that the General Welfare clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the government the power to do so, that is incorrect. The General Walfare clause only has to do with the power to collect taxes (excise, tariffs, etc) and spend money to carry out the duties of the federal government as enumerated by the U.S. Constitution (see http://law.jrank.org/pages/7116/General-Welfare.html). Seeing as those duties do not include health care, then that means that they passed an unconstitutional bill.
Now I would like to talk about impact on businesses. Caterpillar stated that the bill would cost it a 20% increase in insurance costs next year which would equal about $100 million, which would impact pay to employees/retirees/shareholders (see http://www.businessinsider.com/caterpillar-claims-health-care-reform-would-hit-them-for-100-million-2010-3). Small businesses will be impacted also, those that have 50 or more employees must provide insurance or face a fine of $750.00 to $2,000.00 per employee. One business owner stated that he will stay at 49 employees (see http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/business&id=7344877). That is not good for the employment numbers if business owners are going to decide to start limiting their employment numbers to keep their costs down because of forced compliance with insurance laws.
So how about some of the taxes, lets take a look at that (See http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ake7tOWwUT6E). There is going to be a 2.3% tax on the purchase of a wheelchair (isn't that used for health care?), drugmakers will pay a $3 billion fee annually which may get passed to consumers (that is supposed to help those that can't currently afford medicines?), people will be "fined" for not buying insurance if they have to choose between insurance or food/utilities/rent (that really helps out, not), there will be a 3.8% tax on rents/interest/capital gains/investments, out of pocket medical expenses will be raised from 7.5% to 10% of income before they are deductible (again it will impact many lower income people). The impact is that rents will rise affecting many low income people, your savings will be impacted in a time that we should be encouraging saving money, if you own a business you will be impacted due to capital gains from your business being profitable and worth more. This will not be good for the economy and will make it harder for those that can't get by or those that barely do to afford even the necessities of life.
The common sense thing to do would be for the federal government to stay out of it and have the states handle it. It could be done like Massachusetts did or some other way. There some that have made the statement that "we are required to have insurance to drive a car, why not be required to have health insurance?" Well, first of all there is no federal law that requires anyone to have car insurance in order to drive; that is required by the states. Secondly, car insurance is to protect others when you have an accident, health insurance only covers you (and your family if they are covered).
This is not the time we should be doing something like this, you don't fix an ailing economy by adding more problems to it.
Sin taxes?
The federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau released a report on the amount of taxes collected for 2009 on the so called sin taxes. The "sin taxes" listed in the report are: alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and ammunition. I don't recall any of these items being listed in the bible as being sins. I realize that there are religions that consider drinking alcohol a sin, I find that a little curious considering that wine (an alcohol)is listed as being consumed numerous times in the bible. In fact Jesus turned water into wine; if it was a sin Jesus would not have done that.
I am particularly interested in the fact that firearms and ammo are included in the category of sin taxes. Why is a tool, yes I said tool, that would help you provide food as well as security for your family, included on the list? With alcohol and tobacco you could become so addicted to them that they become your god, which is a sin. However, I have yet to find anyone that is or has become addicted to firearms. Sure there are liberals that would claim that there are some, if not all, gun owners that are addicted to firearms. I think that this is part of the whole stigmatism of firearms that has caused such fear of them. To quote Sigmund Freud "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Maybe that is the problem with those people involved in adding them to the "sin tax" list and creating a histaria over them.
I am particularly interested in the fact that firearms and ammo are included in the category of sin taxes. Why is a tool, yes I said tool, that would help you provide food as well as security for your family, included on the list? With alcohol and tobacco you could become so addicted to them that they become your god, which is a sin. However, I have yet to find anyone that is or has become addicted to firearms. Sure there are liberals that would claim that there are some, if not all, gun owners that are addicted to firearms. I think that this is part of the whole stigmatism of firearms that has caused such fear of them. To quote Sigmund Freud "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Maybe that is the problem with those people involved in adding them to the "sin tax" list and creating a histaria over them.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Thoughts on Kagan
There has been a lot of talk about the nomination of Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court and the Senate hearings for her. There are many that state that we should not approve her because she is liberal, pro-abortion, etc. To be brutally honest; I could care less about those, but there are a couple of issues I do have with her that should automatically exclude her from being nominated and they are:
*her belief that foreign law should be used in making decisions
*her belief that justices should use their power to make laws
*her belief that it is ok to pass a law that is unconstitutional because the government would never enforce it.
The first 2 of these beliefs are in clear violation of the judicial branch's power, as Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution states "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." The statement "which shall be made, under their Authority" does not grant them the power to make laws (that power is granted to the Congress) but means that they are to include laws, treaties, etc. that made while they are on the bench. Notice there is nothing about foreign laws either, that is because the Founding Fathers intentionally excluded them as many of the foreign laws at the time were repugnant to what the country was founded on. Think about this also; do we want laws such as those in Islamic countries to be used to make in decisions, ie. laws such as women are nothing but possessions.
The last point is proof that she is not fit to sit on the bench, if any part of a law is in violation of the Constitution the whole law is in violation. Then there is the fact that if we allow these laws to be "ok" then at some point we could have the government actually enforce the unconstitutional part of the law.
I want to touch on a couple of things I see and hear a lot of:
*The first is about how the Constitution is to be interpreted. The fact of the matter is is that the Constitution is in plain English and that means that it states exactly what it means. When we attempt to interpret it is when we run into issues. Look at what was said about the 2nd amendment prior to the Miller decision, we had people interpreting the 2nd to mean that it applied to the military/National Guard when it plainly states it applies to the people (the citizens).
*The other is about whether the rights, such as the 2nd, are granted or that they are incorporated by means of the Due Process or Privileges/Immunities clauses of the 10th amendment. They are natural rights, meaning that they existed before the creation of any government.
If we nominate and appoint people that will adhere to the Constitution and not attempt to interpret the Constitution, regardless of their ideology, then we should have a USSC that the Founding Fathers intended.
*her belief that foreign law should be used in making decisions
*her belief that justices should use their power to make laws
*her belief that it is ok to pass a law that is unconstitutional because the government would never enforce it.
The first 2 of these beliefs are in clear violation of the judicial branch's power, as Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution states "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." The statement "which shall be made, under their Authority" does not grant them the power to make laws (that power is granted to the Congress) but means that they are to include laws, treaties, etc. that made while they are on the bench. Notice there is nothing about foreign laws either, that is because the Founding Fathers intentionally excluded them as many of the foreign laws at the time were repugnant to what the country was founded on. Think about this also; do we want laws such as those in Islamic countries to be used to make in decisions, ie. laws such as women are nothing but possessions.
The last point is proof that she is not fit to sit on the bench, if any part of a law is in violation of the Constitution the whole law is in violation. Then there is the fact that if we allow these laws to be "ok" then at some point we could have the government actually enforce the unconstitutional part of the law.
I want to touch on a couple of things I see and hear a lot of:
*The first is about how the Constitution is to be interpreted. The fact of the matter is is that the Constitution is in plain English and that means that it states exactly what it means. When we attempt to interpret it is when we run into issues. Look at what was said about the 2nd amendment prior to the Miller decision, we had people interpreting the 2nd to mean that it applied to the military/National Guard when it plainly states it applies to the people (the citizens).
*The other is about whether the rights, such as the 2nd, are granted or that they are incorporated by means of the Due Process or Privileges/Immunities clauses of the 10th amendment. They are natural rights, meaning that they existed before the creation of any government.
If we nominate and appoint people that will adhere to the Constitution and not attempt to interpret the Constitution, regardless of their ideology, then we should have a USSC that the Founding Fathers intended.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
America the divided
"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.... A hyphenated American is not an American at all... Americanism is a matter of the spirit, and of the soul...The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans...each preserving its separate nationality.... The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans.... There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American." - Theodore Roosevelt (1907)
THE HYPHEN by John Wayne (1973):
"The Hyphen, Webster's Dictionary defines,
Is a symbol used to divide a
compound word or a single word.
So it seems to me that when a man calls himself
An "Afro-American," a "Mexican-American,"
"Italian-American," An "Irish-American,"
"Jewish-American,"
What he's sayin' is, "I'm a divided American."
Well, we all came from other places,
Different creeds and different races,
To form a nation...to become as one,
Yet look at the harm a line has done-
A simple little line, and yet
As divisive as a line can get.
A crooked cross the Nazis flew,
And the Russian hammer and sickle too-
Time bombs in the lives of Man;
But none of these could ever fan
The fames of hatred faster than
The Hyphen.
The Russian hammer built a wall
That locks men's hearts from freedom's call.
A crooked cross flew overhead
Above twenty million tragic dead-
Among them men from this great nation,
Who died for freedom's preservation.
A hyphen is a line that's small;
It can be a bridge or be a wall.
A bridge can save you lots of time;
A wall you always have to climb.
The road to liberty lies true.
The Hyphen's use is up to you.
Used as a bridge, it can span
All the differences of Man.
Being free in mind and soul
Should be our most important goal.
If you use The Hyphen as a wall,
You'll make your life mean...and small.
An American is a special breed,
Whose people came to her in need.
They came to her that they might find
A world where they'd have peace of mind.
Where men are equal...and something more-
Stand taller than they stood before.
So you be wise in your decision,
And that little line won't cause division.
Let's join hands with one another...
For in this land, each man's your brother.
United we stand...divided we fall.
WE'RE AMERICANS...and that says it all."
We have become one nation divisible and we can thank our "leaders", present as well as past" for this. While they have all stated that we need to stop dividing the country, those very same "leaders" for creating the divisions. They divide us based on income, ethnicity, sex and more. Maybe if the "leaders" would stop doing this themselves, then maybe the common citizen would also. Enough with rich/poor, choose an ethnicity or sex on forms, or even right/left wing. What happened to lead by example?
THE HYPHEN by John Wayne (1973):
"The Hyphen, Webster's Dictionary defines,
Is a symbol used to divide a
compound word or a single word.
So it seems to me that when a man calls himself
An "Afro-American," a "Mexican-American,"
"Italian-American," An "Irish-American,"
"Jewish-American,"
What he's sayin' is, "I'm a divided American."
Well, we all came from other places,
Different creeds and different races,
To form a nation...to become as one,
Yet look at the harm a line has done-
A simple little line, and yet
As divisive as a line can get.
A crooked cross the Nazis flew,
And the Russian hammer and sickle too-
Time bombs in the lives of Man;
But none of these could ever fan
The fames of hatred faster than
The Hyphen.
The Russian hammer built a wall
That locks men's hearts from freedom's call.
A crooked cross flew overhead
Above twenty million tragic dead-
Among them men from this great nation,
Who died for freedom's preservation.
A hyphen is a line that's small;
It can be a bridge or be a wall.
A bridge can save you lots of time;
A wall you always have to climb.
The road to liberty lies true.
The Hyphen's use is up to you.
Used as a bridge, it can span
All the differences of Man.
Being free in mind and soul
Should be our most important goal.
If you use The Hyphen as a wall,
You'll make your life mean...and small.
An American is a special breed,
Whose people came to her in need.
They came to her that they might find
A world where they'd have peace of mind.
Where men are equal...and something more-
Stand taller than they stood before.
So you be wise in your decision,
And that little line won't cause division.
Let's join hands with one another...
For in this land, each man's your brother.
United we stand...divided we fall.
WE'RE AMERICANS...and that says it all."
We have become one nation divisible and we can thank our "leaders", present as well as past" for this. While they have all stated that we need to stop dividing the country, those very same "leaders" for creating the divisions. They divide us based on income, ethnicity, sex and more. Maybe if the "leaders" would stop doing this themselves, then maybe the common citizen would also. Enough with rich/poor, choose an ethnicity or sex on forms, or even right/left wing. What happened to lead by example?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)