Much of the Washington talk these days is about bailouts and stimulus packages and how much of our money (that is yours and mine) the government is going to give away to banks, insurance companies, car companies and everyone else who shows up hat in hand to beg at the government trough.

Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) has a simple idea, so simple that it will be difficult for the congresscritters and other elites to accept. Congressman Gohmert proposes that a “tax holiday” be declared for January and February 2009. During those months all federal income taxes (including FICA) will be suspended, all income earned during that period would be free of federal tax. He proposes to “pay” for this holiday by returning the approximately $353 billion remaining in the TARP funds (the big financial bailout fund) to the treasury. The “lost” income to the government due to the tax holiday would be approximately $330 billion. So the net of this is a gain of $23 billion to the treasury.

In fact of course it would be much more than that. The average family earning $50,000 a year would see a savings of approximately $2,000. By putting that $330 billion back into the economy we would see a true stimulus with additional savings, investment and spending by consumers.

It is time for all of us to call our congress-critters, senators, newspapers and talk radio shows. Let them know that it is our money. Let them know that we can make far better use of it to rebuild our economy than the government can. Demand that congress pass the Gohmert plan.

Over fifty-seven million people voted against Barak Obama. Congress does listen; the McCain-Kennedy immigration amnesty bill would have passed had the people not told Congress to stop it. A poll out yesterday shows that 61% of the people oppose bailing out the auto industry. How many people might take that $2,000 and use it as down payment on a new car? Let the market decide what industries should survive. Please, call your representatives TODAY. Let your voice be heard. If we all stand up, they will notice.

God Bless America

Last night Saxby Chambliss finally won re-election insuring that the Democrats will not have 60 members (including the two independents) in the Senate. Republicans nationwide heaved a great sigh of relief, but it may be premature. The power of the filibuster now rests in the hands of at least three senators whose records are anything but encouraging. The burden will fall upon Republican leader Mitch McConnell to keep these three in line for any filibuster to hold.

These senators are the very definition of RINO – Republican In Name Only. They have been on the wrong side of issues from tax cuts, to judicial confirmations, to war. One even spoke out in opposition to the rescue of Grenada in 1983! Regrettably two of these RINOs come from my home state of Maine: Senator Olympia Snowe and Senator Susan Collins. The third is Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Sometimes joined by erstwhile presidential candidate John McCain, these senators have contributed greatly to the disastrous legislative record of the Republicans in the last eight years.

I don’t envy Senator McConnell his task of trying to keep these three in line, but at least now we have a chance to have some kind of check on the left’s wild ideas.

God Bless America

You see it every day on our currency, our national motto: E Pluribus Unum. But how many Americans know what that Latin phrase means? The translation is “From Many, One.” There are many ways this phrase can be interpreted – one country from many colonies, one people from many backgrounds, etc. Unfortunately this latter interpretation seems to have fallen out of favor of late. Bill Murray’s character in the movie Stripes described the concept in this unique way:

“We're Americans, with a capital 'A', huh? You know what that means? Do ya? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts! Here's proof: his nose is cold! But there's no animal that's more faithful, that's more loyal, more loveable than the mutt.”

The concept of being simply Americans (with a capital ‘A’) has been subsumed by “multiculturalism” and hyphenated-Americanism. The great “Melting Pot” has been replaced by a segregated cooking surface where things are rapidly coming to a boil as people are separated into special groups for purposes of political victimization.

One of the greatest Americans* ever, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., told us that he dreamt of a day when his children would be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. But today’s “Liberals” want just the opposite. In the name of “Diversity” everyone must be categorized and segmented by racial or national origin in order to be granted the correct special privileges. Therefore we must now have a plethora of hyphenated Americans who are to be judged by their membership in a particular category.

It is ironic that in this year, when we elected Barack Obama as the first Democrat president of the 21^st century, race was such a major issue in the election. Post election polls clearly show that a large plurality of Obama voters had no idea what policies he was proposing or views that he holds. His biggest points were that he is not George W. Bush and is non-Caucasian.

I believe that it is fair to examine whether Barack Obama was judged by the content of is character or by the color of his skin. Unfortunately I believe it was the latter. There is no doubt whatsoever that Obama is a dynamic, charismatic leader and speaker. However, he is arguably the least qualified person ever to be elected to the office (actually of course he hasn’t been elected yet, but that is for another day). He has served but a brief time in the U.S. Senate and previously a brief stint as a state senator. He has never run a business, never held any kind of executive position and has no foreign policy experience. His foreign policy pronouncements have been decried as naïve and dangerous by NATO leaders and his own nominee for Secretary of State. His proposed domestic policies can only be described as socialistic at best.

No presidential candidate in recent history has been given such as pass by the press. There is no questioning that President Bush proved the old adage that attempting to please everyone ends up pleasing no one. There is no question that John McCain was not a candidate that would energize the conservative base and he did a very poor job of getting his message out. However, I strongly doubt that a candidate with Senator (not yet President-elect) Obama’s experience and beliefs would ever be elected all other things being equal. The press wanted Obama to be elected and therefore they did not push issues that would have destroyed other candidates. His policies are not dissimilar to those proffered by Dennis Kucinich (anyone remember him?). Congressman Kucinich (Moonbat – Ohio) has run for president not once, but twice. He is hugely popular with the lunatic fringe (MoveOn.org, DailyKos, George Soros, etc.) but was never able to get beyond that base even though he is a reasonable (but not Obama-standard) orator. How likely is it that any other candidate (of either party) would have survived being so closely affiliated with an unrepentant terrorist (William Ayers), a viciously anti-American pastor (Reverend Wright), and a group whose name is synonymous with voter registration fraud and intimidation tactics (ACORN)? Bill Clinton was heavily criticized for his (laughable) statement that he never inhaled. George W. Bush’s alcoholism was a constant topic of punditry during the 2000 and 2004 elections. Barack Obama’s heavy drug use (as described in his books)? Never mentioned in the main stream media. Barack Obama’s vote to allow the killing of living survivors of botched abortions? Never mentioned in the main stream media.

Barack Obama is the poster child of the multiculturalist elite that believes that everyone (except the evil rich of course) is a victim. When I was growing up, immigrants were (and still are) the backbone of this nation. They came here legally and worked hard to improve themselves and the lives of their children. They struggled to learn the language and they were extremely proud to call themselves Americans. Now we are told that it is racist to expect people to learn English. We are told that (any target voting bloc here)-Americans need special rights, help with college, easier loans (oops), etc., etc.

It is ironic, that the people who claim to embrace tolerance and to want us all to get along are the very ones that have created the situation where E Pluribus Unum is no longer even a goal in this country.

God Bless America

*Note: I deliberately said American, not African-American. I feel that Dr. King would be highly offended to be segregated that way and by the way his dream has been perverted by Jesse Jackson, et. al.

Since the election I have talked to and heard from a number of people who say that they have just given up on politics and on the country. They feel that freedom and America are lost causes. I can pull out some old clichés (it is always darkest before the dawn) and I probably will, but I want to tell you right now that we have an historic opportunity to re-establish the course towards freedom. It will take lots of work, but I firmly believe that it can and will be done.

Sixteen years ago the American people elected William Jefferson Clinton to the White House with strong majorities in both the House and Senate. Two years later the American people said “Whoa Bubba! Back off” and gave Republicans control of the House and Senate for the first time in decades. Regrettably as we all know the Republicans lost sight of their principles and so, as they say, here we go again!

Unlike 1992 when President Clinton came to office claiming that “The age of big government is over!” (At least until GWB got elected), President-elect Obama makes no secret of the fact that he wants a much bigger government; a government that will meddle in every aspect of our lives.

This is the time where we all must stand up and make it clear that while America wanted change, we still want our freedom. More than 57 million people voted for John McCain and Sarah Palin, millions more stayed home because they were (understandably) disgusted with the Republican Party. Exit polls clearly showed that 69% of Americans still want a smaller government.  Despite all the hype, the youth of America did NOT turn out in droves to vote for Obama (the percentage of young voters was exactly the same as in 2004 and their breakdown was almost the same as well).

Obama is a highly intelligent, dynamic, energetic, charismatic and youthful leader. His message of change and lower taxes was what America wanted to hear. Unfortunately the details escaped most voters since the so-called main stream media gave Obama a pass on almost everything.

Right now many people think our cause is lost and this is America's greatest political disaster. I disagree; as Ed Harris said in “Apollo 13”, “I believe this will be our finest hour.” All of the freedoms that we have taken for granted face challenges that we have never seen before. The risk this time is not from abroad, but is from our own government. We have less than two years to get our message out, to remind the people of what America is all about and who stands with them to protect their freedom. In two years we can take control of Congress again, and as important, we can take control of state legislatures nationwide who will be in charge of re-districting. This is the time to stand up. If you like what I write, please forward the link to friends, family, co-workers, anyone. Help me get the message out and help us all protect our God given freedoms. We can, must, and will prevail. Don’t Give Up the Ship! I have not yet begun to fight!

God Bless America

When the recent crisis in the financial sector began, the press and others immediately began to shout that the free market system had failed. John McCain suspended (and lost) his campaign to try to save the world by leading the effort for a $700 BILLION bailout that had to be passed immediately lest the entire economy come to a screeching halt. Here we are, weeks later, less than half of the original amount handed out and yet we are still here. Now the “Big Three” automakers send their corporate bigwigs in their corporate jets to Washington with their hands out saying they just can’t make it without a taxpayer bailout.

Some Republicans have joined the cry and have said that the only answer for the party’s future is to move “to the middle” (read move left) in order to regain strength. They say that we need more government regulation to control the greed on Wall Street and in corporate board rooms. They ignore the fact that these “crises” are directly attributable to government interference in the marketplace.

If the Republicans want to get back in office the formula is simple. Follow the path laid out by Ronald Reagan in 1980 and followed by Newt Gingrich in 1996. John McCain didn’t follow that path and Republicans stayed home in droves. Look at Ohio where Obama got fewer votes than John Kerry did in 2004 but John McCain got over 130,000 fewer votes than George Bush did in ’04. Republicans sat on their hands and we got President-elect Obama.

Americans have shown over and over again that they want candidates who stand for and deliver smaller government. They want candidates who stand for lower taxes (Obama stole that message this year). The Republicans betrayed them by proving that “compassionate conservatism” meant bigger government, more pork, and higher deficits. John McCain was the wrong candidate because he was the ultimate champion of the RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). Although he is right on so-called “earmarks”, he is wrong on campaign finance, he was wrong on tax cuts, and he was wrong on the courts.

The press and the Democrats tell us that Americans want “bi-partisanship” what they mean of course is that they want Republicans to agree to what the Democrats want. When Republicans start standing up for the free market, when they again start demanding more freedom rather than less, and less government rather than more; then and only then will they start winning elections again.

The free market works, socialism and centrally controlled markets do not. This has been proven over and over again. It is time to stand up for what is right, it should be easy, because it works.

God Bless America

It seems to me that most people, both in America and elsewhere, think that the United States is a democracy. Even our politicians routinely refer to this country as a democracy. But the fact is that the United States is not now, nor has ever been, a democracy and our founders would be horrified if we were to become a democracy.

The United States is a republic. Every school child should know this: “…and to the republic for which it stands…” For those of you with a public school education, note that this is not about the Republican and Democrat parties, but is about our form of government. A democracy is a form of government where the people rule by popular vote; in a “pure” democracy all laws require the vote of all the people. Some countries have “representative” democracies, where the government is elected by popular vote. That is not the case here.

During the 2000 recount fiasco, we often heard the phrase “one man, one vote.” Well that is not part of how our government works and certainly not part of electing the president. Part of the genius of the form of the government our founders selected is that it is built to avoid one of the great traps of democracy: the tyranny of the majority. They avoided it by making sure that our government was structured to be responsible to all the people, not just the majority. They created three branches, of the three branches, only ½ of one them would be elected democratically. The House of Representatives is the ONLY democratically elected body in our government. In fact, it was not until 1913 and the passage of the 17^th Amendment that Senators were elected by direct vote of the people. But note that even with that change, the United States Senate is not a democratically elected body. Each state, regardless of population or size, has two Senators. Therefore people living in a more populous state are under-represented in democratic terms.

The federal judiciary is appointed, not elected. No democracy there. But what about the Presidency? Every four years, millions of people cast ballots to elect a president and vice president, or do they? In reality they do not. The President of the United States is not elected by popular vote. In fact, there is no requirement for a popular vote for President in the Constitution. The Constitution instead sets up the Electoral College which is defined in Article II Section 1.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

While all states have decided to appoint electors by means of popular vote, it is NOT a requirement of the Constitution. It is entirely legal for the legislature of any state to decide that the Governor shall appoint the Electors. Why did the founding fathers set it up this way? Is it now irrelevant and obsolete since all 50 states have decided to use the popular vote to select electors? (Note that on election day, despite what some ballots say, votes are NOT cast for individual candidates, but rather for a slate of electors committed to those candidates.)

What is the purpose and benefit of the Electoral College? It is one of our firmest and most enduring defenses against the tyranny of the majority. Notice the makeup of the body, each state has one member for each Representative and Senator. This has the effect of giving the small states slightly more power (proportionally) than the large states. This only works in a “winner take all” scenario which is used in 48 of the 50 states. This difference is enough to prevent New York, Florida, Illinois and California from electing our president every four years. It means that candidates MUST campaign in the so-called swing states because they must carry more than just the population centers.

Abolishing the Electoral College would fundamentally destroy the delicate balance of power that founders struggled so hard to achieve for our great country.

God Bless America

I think it is now safe to say that the country is in a recession and it threatens to be a bad one. Certainly the economy is in the worst shape since the Carter presidency although we are still MUCH better off than we were in 1979. (Remember 13% inflation, 21% mortgages, and 11% unemployment?) All the talk in Washington these days is about bailouts; $700 Billion already for the finance industry, and now the debate is over $25 Billion more for the auto industry.

The finance bailout is already done, so I won’t go into that one now, but why are we looking to bailout the “Big Three” automakers? I can see an argument for assisting GM and Ford since to some considerable extent the government caused their problem (more in a moment) and there are millions of US stockholders who stand to lose if they file bankruptcy. But Chrysler is privately held and recently purchased by investors who theoretically knew what they were buying; I don’t see any legitimate reason to assist them.

Why are GM, Ford and Chrysler in so much trouble today while Honda, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Mazda and others seem to be able build cars in the US profitably? I see two reasons: 1) the government has forced GM, Ford and Chrysler to build cars that are not in their “sweet” spot and target markets. They have done this through CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) regulations that led to the creation of such exciting vehicles as the Ford Aspire and the Chevy Metro. The American consumer looks to the big three for large, safe, comfortable, reliable cars and trucks. When they want high economy, they look to the Japanese manufacturers, when we want high performance, great handling cars we look to the European manufacturers. Cadillac is still the luxury leader, Ford is still the family car and the work truck, Jeep is still the offroad adventure. That is what the market wants. Who wants to be caught dead in a Ford Aspire (the odds being pretty good if you actually drive one)?

The 2^nd reason is self-inflicted. The management of these companies did not have the courage to stand up and tell the UAW where to get off during contract negotiations and they have been pushed into unsustainable and ridiculous union contracts to the point where the highest single cost of any vehicle is not the engine or computers or any physical part but is the cost of union benefits (the second largest cost is taxes, more on that in a minute).

Bankruptcy would allow the companies to renegotiate these absurd contracts, end the “job banks” where employees sit around and get paid while waiting for something to do, and would allow the kind of restructuring that is necessary. GM would be better off without Pontiac, Ford could lose the Mercury brand. Would anyone but my Dad miss Buick?

However, the habit of adding or deleting parts of the Constitution to suit the whim of the reader is regrettably not limited to one political persuasion. This particular columnist, a representative of the National Center for Constitutional Studies, found a Constitutional requirement to protect marriage: “The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family, therefore governments have the responsibility to foster and protect its integrity.”

I went online and pulled up the text of the Constitution and did some searching. Nowhere did I find any reference to the words marriage or family. The closest reference to anything of the sort is in the First Amendment which I am afraid people only know in abstract.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first clause of this amendment is about religion. It says that there shall be no state established religion (the “establishment clause”) AND that there shall be no laws prohibiting the free exercise of [any] religion. Nowhere does it say or even imply that there should be a wall separating church and state. Nor does it say that the state has a responsibility to protect people from religion. In fact quite the opposite, the people who call for banning prayer at football games and graduations are clearly “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.  

To me, the establishment clause and its qualifier emphasizing that not only can Congress not create a state religion but that it also cannot limit the free exercise of religion, are very clear. They also tell me that laws prohibiting polygamy and homosexual marriage are clearly unconstitutional limitations on the free exercise of religion. I am not commenting in any way about the morality of polygamy or homosexual marriage, that is a religious and personal issue, not a subject for government intervention. In my view, the Constitution makes it clear that individual rights are paramount and what happens between consenting adults is not a matter for government.

The entire issue of marriage as a function of government seems absurd to me. It has only become an issue for government since the tax code began to be used to manipulate societal behavior. Marriage should be purely an issue for religion, the only place government would become involved is the enforcement of the civil aspects of marriage which are simply a contract between individuals. As is the case with any contract between individuals, when a dispute arises it is the purview of the civil courts to resolve that dispute. This is a state and local function not a federal function.

The word “fair” has been bandied about a lot in politics lately. We are hearing about the likely return of the “Fairness Doctrine”; President-elect Obama likes to talk about tax “fairness” for the middle class; and of course we have the “Fair Tax” proposal championed by Neal Boortz, Congressman Linder and Senator Chambliss among others. I find it unfortunate that Boortz and Linder chose to call their proposal the “Fair Tax” because fair is a word that is mostly used in a way that only Orwell could love.

The reason the word fair is so hard to pin down is that its meaning is so dependent on the world view of the person using it. For president-elect Obama and the Democrats, fairness is apparently defined in terms of equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. They also seem to define it more from a victim’s view: something is unfair. For example, Democrats believe that it is unfair that conservatives have been successful on talk radio while Air America was a total failure. Interestingly they don’t seem to think that it is unfair for MSNBC to become the unofficial network of the Obama campaign or that the so-called Main Stream Media gave Obama a pass throughout the entire campaign. As it happens, I don’t think that was unfair at all. I had the freedom to change channels and watch FoxNews or put in a DVD. There is a reason FoxNews is #1. More on the so-called Fairness Doctrine another time.   

To me, fair means that I get treated the same as everyone else, no better, no worse. There is one thing that Barack Obama and I agree on 100%. Our current tax policy is completely unfair. Unfortunately we totally disagree on why we believe it is unfair. Obama claims it is unfair because the rich are not paying enough. There is a simple explanation of this ridiculous situation that has been bouncing around the internet for a while describing what happens when 10 people share lunch every day and pay for it based on our tax system. It has been credited to a Professor T. Davies of the University of South Dakota School of Business, it goes like this:

This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on-it does make you think!!

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this.

The first four men-the poorest-would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man-the richest-would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement-until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six - the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and The sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man, but he, pointing to the tenth. "But he got $7!". "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too, ........It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!".

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill!

Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how The tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

Patriots’ Day, April 19, is a state holiday in Maine and Massachusetts to commemorate the Battle of Lexington and Concord and the “Shot Heard ‘Round the World”. Why did those Minutemen take up arms that early spring morning in 1775? Was it to free Boston from those “infernal redcoats”? No. Had any occupied city ever had better treatment than Boston? Had a single newspaper been stopped? Had a single opposition leader been hung or even arrested? No. 

It is true soldiers were quartered in Boston and the city was occupied and slowly being crushed by the closing of the port. But food was getting in. John Hancock, John and Samuel Adams, Joseph Warren, Paul Revere and many others all traveled freely to and from the city. Great public meetings were held to protest the occupation and delegates were sent to the 1^st Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia. The British did not interfere with any of these things. Virtually all of the taxes that had caused so much trouble had been repealed even prior to the Boston Tea Party some 15 months earlier. So why on that early morning of April 19, 1775 did a war break out, a war that lasted six years (and another two before England accepted the end result)?

The answer, as is often the case, is both simple and complex. The proximate cause was the reason the British were marching to Lexington and Concord: to seize the stockpiles of arms and ammunition that the colonists had stored in Concord. The British planned to remove the ability of the citizens to stand up against the King’s Army. But why were the colonists ready to fight? Were they fighting to create a new nation? Were they fighting to cut their taxes? No. I believe that the great author Esther Forbes put it best. She wrote that they were fighting “so that a man can stand up.” Throughout history up until that point, individuals had few rights but those permitted to them by their rulers. Whether it was the peasants of France, the serfs of Russia, or the colonists in America; the concepts of human rights that we know today did not then exist. But here in America we had spawned a new breed, more independent, more self-sufficient, proud and arrogant and ready to stand on our own two feet. All we asked was to be given the full rights of Englishmen. But King George and parliament had other ideas.

The Declaration of Independence made a bold claim. It set forth that our rights come not from any King or government but from God. It further said that these rights are inalienable, meaning that they cannot be taken away or even given up. They are our absolute rights, and this fact is so obvious that it needs no explanation. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these Rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” These men did not consider this to be a subject for debate; these truths are “self-evident.” The Declaration and, 11 years later, the Constitution were written entirely based upon these truths. That one sentence, 36 simple words, defines precisely what my Great Great Great Great Grandfather, Captain Isaac Davis, died for that April morning. That is why 233 years later I am writing this blog. We need to remember these words every day. We need to stand up for what they mean and make every day Patriots’ Day.

God Bless America

"On this Veterans’ Day please accept my thanks for your service to your country and to all of us. Hopefully our country will never forget the principles that you each took time from your lives to protect. Your sacrifices helped to keep us free just as those of your predecessors helped to make us free. Also thanks to the loved ones who stayed behind while fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, sons and daughters went off to serve and particularly those whose loved ones never came home. Whether in war or peace, you, the men and women who serve in our armed services, honor us with your dedication to American freedom and human liberty. May God bless all who have and are serving and may those serving in harm’s way today or in the future come home safely and in Victory." 

Summoned by the three musket shot signal that ringed the village and countryside, the Minutemen hastened to the home of their young Captain, a skilled gunsmith who had made his own gun and equipped his company with bayonets. [The only Minuteman Company so equipped that day.]

After saying farewell to his wife Hannah, shown standing in the doorway, Captain Davis turned and said, "take good care of the children Hannah."

Then, at the head of his company, Captain Davis gave the order to march. In that early spring dawn, to the tune of fife and drum playing the "White Cockade" they marched the more than six miles over the old roads to the agreed upon rendezvous at the Muster Field in Concord.

There, after a conference of Officers, Captain Davis was heard to say "I haven't a man afraid to go," He then wheeled his men to the right of the column and with Major Buttrick of Concord and Colonel Robinson of Westford led his men to meet the attack at the Bridge.

He was shot through the heart by the first British volley on the spot where the Minuteman Statue now stands.  Another of the company, Abner Hosmer, was killed by that same volley.

Captain Davis, the first commissioned officer to be killed in the War of Independence, became the symbolic model for the Statue, chosen by Daniel Chester French as best typifying the spirit he wished to portray.

my space counter