Continental Courage

Where do you find courage in this country? Not in the southern or western U.S., which overwhelming succumbed to the Bush campaign's fear mongering and Dick Cheney's demented suggestion that a vote for John Kerry is a vote for the terrorists.

The result of the 2004 presidential election shows that those red, rural states betrayed the macho, hairy-chested creed they'd like us to think they live by. They rolled over for George Bush's hollow boast of "mission accomplished" in Iraq and his craven call to the terrorists — from the safety of the Oval Office — to "bring it on." They are responsible for the re-election of a man who lacks the guts to tell the truth about why he ordered the invasion of Iraq — and who can't summon the courage to take responsibility for his many failures in prosecuting that war. The real WMD of the 2004 campaign is W's Mass Deception. Sadly, too few people in those critical red states were brave enough to call him on it.

What, exactly, are rural Americans afraid of? Recent history shows that they have little to fear from terrorism. Al Qaeda doesn't attack corn fields and Wal-Marts; it targets urban centers and the symbols of America's might. The vast majority of the 3000 people who perished in the collapse of the World Trade Center's twin towers were from three of those brie-eating, white-wine swilling East Coast states — New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. The real heroes of 9/11 are the New Yorkers of 9/12, who buried their dead and, even in their grief, set about rebuilding the city. Those people — as well as the citizens of Washington, DC, who suffered the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon — might be forgiven for buying into Cheney's apocalyptic visions of dirty bombs and mushroom clouds. But they didn't. Instead, they found the courage to take a risk and reach for change. They saw through Bush's campaign of fear and intolerance; by a wide margin, they voted for Kerry.

In his essay In Search of Courage, which ran in Fast Company's Sept. 2004 issue, Senator John McCain wrote that, "Courage is not the absence of fear, but the capacity to act despite our fears." The people of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and DC — those who suffered the most from the terrorist attacks of 9/11 — found the courage to act, despite their fears. So too did the people of so many cities — from Boston to Chicago to LA to Seattle. The very people who are most likely to endure a future attack courageously rejected the fear factor of Bush's campaign. Our great challenge, over the next four years, will be to convince those quaking, queasy voters in the nation's heartland to snap out of it. They must, to paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt, "do the thing they think they cannot do." If they don't find the courage to fight off Bush/Cheney's breathtaking capacity to play on their fears, then I'm afraid we'll all have real reason to fear for this country's future.

Add New Comment


  • Tyler

    Ok, I can understand people being really emotional and upset after the elections, especially if you voted Democrat. You had your a**es handed to you all fair and square and that hurts. Like some wild animal, your first instinct is to lash out at the being that caused you pain. I can understand that, I really can. Heck, if I had voted Democrat this election I'd be feeling the same emotions and I would want to blow off some steam as well.

    The thing I don't understand is how you can be so stupid! You lost yet you (as a party) treat those people who disagreed with your party's philosophy, presentation, and candidate, with utter contempt. Calling us Nazis, cowards, hicks, etc., is NOT going to convince us to back your party. Start treating Middle America with a little respect and you might get our vote.

    Nothing Beats Thinking,

    PS I also posted on Keith Hammonds' counterpoint to this article. I think I made a lot more sense in that post so go ahead and read it too

  • jane

    Q. how can bush run as the security president? didn't he ignore all the info that led to the 9/11 attacks?

    A. He was on vacation.

  • Katherine Stone

    I've been listening to Air America lately just to hear the reaction to the victory of President Bush, and it's very similar to this diatribe. Those red-staters are obviously either uneducated, haven't been paying attention, don't know how the world really works, live in places that don't really count anyway, are hatemongers, etc. etc. It's completely ridiculous to assert that half of the population of the United States doesn't have a valuable opinion. I actually sat in a meeting last week where someone commented, with complete seriousness, that only people from New York City and Los Angeles should be able to vote in U.S. elections for president. What?!The thing that is great about America is that there is no one better part, no place that somehow deserves to be more important than everyplace else. For a party that seems so centered on equality, it's interesting that they've suddenly now decided all votes, and all voters, are not equal. I've lived in blue states and red states, cities and suburbs, and guess what: they all count, and they all have valid life experiences from which they draw their beliefs. Come election time, we all go to the polls and vote and the majority wins. Many votes are based on how each party presents its case, and nothing more. It's disappointing that Democrats this time around are looking for conspiracy theories and ways to completely dismiss those who voted Republican. Perhaps that type of viewpoint and lack of respect for large groups of Americans is the reason why they lost, and what they need to avoid in order to win again.

  • Bruno

    Jack, on a medical level, your post about french people, was pretty interesting - if even a caveman can use a keyboard nowadays, a cure for cancer is not far.

    As a frenchman, if you mind a little opinion about US politics, i would say his reelection is no surprise and i held responsible the US medias that have not done their jobs for the past four years. You should also know that in France in the medias, when you see US militaries killing children or bombarding a school while women are crying asking god "why?", it doesn't help having a good opinion about war in irak. They say here that around 100.000 civilians have already been killed. I imagine this is not the kind of pictures you will see on Fox news. The image we have, i guess outside the US, of US Army in Irak, is young people that don't know much why they are there, don't know against what they are fighting, and shoot whenever its possible to stay alive, whatever the collateral damage might be.

    I feel deeply sorry for the mothers of US militaries that will give their life for nothing and i guess in the future it will be hard for congressmen and others politics to answer questions like this :

    If the basic idea of a war against Irak is fighting terrorism : Why are we (the occidental countries) still supporting an autocratic country like Saudi Arabia which have being financing and supporting Osama Bin Laden ?

  • sam

    get lost are with this group

    "But let's be candid with our Democratic friends: On Tuesday, a majority of the American electorate took a look at their party and asked, "Who are these people?" Who are George Soros, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sontag, Teresa Heinz Kerry and all these other self-anointed spokespersons for everything good and true? And what does a party that is dominated by a loose coalition of the coastal intelligentsia, billionaires with too much spare time, the trial lawyers' association, the Hollywood Actors' Guild, rock stars and unionized labor have in common with what's quaintly known as Middle America? The majority's answers were (a) not us; and (b) not a whole lot.

    opinion yesterday from a respected publication WSJ, not this FC trash...

    The Moral Minority
    November 4, 2004; Page A14

    Watching John Kerry deliver his statesmanlike concession at Faneuil Hall in Boston yesterday -- and then watching his erstwhile spinners and boosters in the Democratic commentariat blame him for Tuesday's rout -- was like one of those nature shows in which the herd gives up its dying animal to the crocs so it can safely ford the stream. It may be expedient, but it also reflects the flaws of the species.

    Mr. Kerry did not run a flawless campaign -- no one running for President ever does. But he ran an effective and energetic one that came about as close to scoring an electoral victory as his margin of popular defeat would allow. His handlers led him into a ditch with his Convention focus on biography and Vietnam, yet the Senator rescued himself in the first debate on foreign policy, the very one he was expected to lose.

    And while President Bush sought constantly to sharpen his differences with Mr. Kerry, the Senator largely succeeded in blurring them, turning an argument about ideology into one about competence. Given the current parameters of Democratic orthodoxy and Mr. Kerry's sincerely held reservations about the use of force, it was the only thing he could do.

    As it is, Mr. Kerry was not exactly the night's lonely Democratic loser. This is the third consecutive election in which the Democrats have lost to George Bush's Republicans (with each loss bigger than the last) and that is no accident. In part it has to do with the global zeitgeist, which plays to traditional Republican strengths on national security; in part with demographic shifts that tilt the electoral college Mr. Bush's way. And as we write in a related commentary, it has still more to do with Mr. Bush's skill as a politician and boldness as a policy maker.

    But let's be candid with our Democratic friends: On Tuesday, a majority of the American electorate took a look at their party and asked, "Who are these people?" Who are George Soros, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sontag, Teresa Heinz Kerry and all these other self-anointed spokespersons for everything good and true? And what does a party that is dominated by a loose coalition of the coastal intelligentsia, billionaires with too much spare time, the trial lawyers' association, the Hollywood Actors' Guild, rock stars and unionized labor have in common with what's quaintly known as Middle America? The majority's answers were (a) not us; and (b) not a whole lot.

    Yet today, the Democratic Party not only suffers trial lawyers and other strange folk -- it puts them on the ticket. For a party that still reckons itself a national force, it is astonishing that Kerry-Edwards started out by simply yielding some 200 "red" electoral votes, or more than a third of the country. It's true that the Bush campaign similarly wrote off big and mid-sized "blue" states such as California, New York, Maryland and Massachusetts. But at least Republicans own the governorships of all those states. When do the Democrats plan to be seriously competitive again in, say, Texas, Florida and Georgia?

    Before Tuesday, the answer appeared to be never. Howard Dean did make primary appeals to the Dukes of Hazzard crowd (as he imagines it), but his was a lone voice. This is a Democratic Party in which nostalgia for tradition is too often considered racism, opposition to gay marriage is bigotry, misgiving about abortion is misogyny, Christian fundamentalism is like Islamic fundamentalism, discussion about gender roles is sexism, and confidence in America's global purpose is cultural imperialism. To put it mildly, this is not the values system to which most Americans adhere.

    Now, however, Democrats have an opportunity to reassess their attitudes. With luck, the election will finally have shattered the myth that Mr. Bush is a "selected," democratically illegitimate president. Democrats may also take the lesson that a political strategy which invites Americans to share in their contempt for the President's intelligence, moral values and religious beliefs -- basically, the Al Gore sighing technique writ large -- is not a winner. That's especially true when the President's intelligence, values and beliefs roughly coincide with those of middle Americans.

    The person on whom the task of moral normalization may fall is Hillary Rodham Clinton, now the most prominent Democrat in the Senate and arguably the party's front-runner for President in 2008. It's true that it was during her husband's Administration that today's great red-blue state cultural divide began to emerge. But she's shown remarkable discipline as a politician, and remarkable adaptability, too, as she has slowly turned herself into a hawk on national security since September 11. That this task might now fall to her must surely have the gods smiling.

  • Jack Wilson

    Keep up the good work - Democrats. You continue to reinforce the perception that you are a bunch of irrational emotional cry babies. You assert so many unfounded accusations that they become laughable. Comparing Bush to Hitler --- please give me a break. Joanna must be on a drug induced trip to even think that.

    Jerry apparently reads the NY Times and listens to CBS to read about the economy and how isolated we are from the world. I prefer the Wall Street Journal and Fox News. The economy is getting better, but slowly. We will never get back to the late 1990s style of economy. Yes, jobs are being sent overseas, an estimate 406000 jobs will be outsourced this year. But there is no mention about insourcing of jobs to US from foreign companies. At the moment there are 5.4 million jobs that have been created by these foreign companies. see for additional info.

    Now for us being isolated from the rest of world. Please give me a break. Personally I am glad that France and Germany are at odds with us. We now know why the French opposed our efforts. They were on the payroll of Saddam. The French are morally bankrupt and corrupt. They are a 3rd rate nation that still lives in the 17th and 18th century when they were in their glory. They have almost 10% unemployment and a stagnant economic and political system. The only decent thing about the frenchies is their wine and cheese. They are probably one of the most nationalistic and arrogrant countries in the world. The disdain the frenchie leadership have had for George Bush since the 2000 election has been insulting. They have treated the central european countries as if they are a group of hicks and they would be wise to follow the frenchies as they are the most intelligent and sophisticated nation in Europe. (Almost like Bill's initial note).

    George Bush tried to have the UN take action against Iraq. After 17 UN resolutions asking, requesting,pleading, demanding, begging, crying for Iraq to change their ways; nothing happened. Why, because the frenchies were being bribed to stonewall the resolutions. The UN became all talk and no action. A sign of great leadership is to be decisive and take action when needed. The irrational emotional elist liberal snobs would have turned on George Bush if we were attacked again by Islamic terrorists. Why did you not go after Saddam, would have been a theme by this group.

    George Bush is decisive and says what he thinks and feels. No facade, no phony airs - just a humble and decent human being. I greatly respect and admire the man. I sorry that this is his last term. I would give him another eight after his second term is up.

    Now for giving Bill accolades for being courageous for writing his column is hysterical. It is the thing to do by irrational, emotional elist liberal snobs. Bill sat at his computer, put aside his brain and got in touch with his inner self. He probably spent time contemplating his navel sang a few bars of some liberal song and then began to write. I see no courage, just a ranting of over wrought irrational emotional elist liberal snob.

    My last comment - I believe that Canada, France and Germany are great place for irrational, emotional, elist, liberal snobs to emigrate to. You can join (hopefully) Michael Moore, Robert Redford, Barbar Streiland, George Soros and any others who feel put out by the 2004 election.

  • Peter Rees


    It was blunt. It was passionate. It was real.

    I appreciate the authenticity of your post (and the subsequent comments), and the posts of your FC peers.

    Happy to continue to support the FC community in whatever way possible.


  • John


    Seek first to understand. Then be understood.

    Come back smarter next time, not enraged. I don't want to listen to you when you're so upset over something you admit you don't get. As I tell my son, why don't you go sit down for a minute and calm down. When you're ready to have a conversation like a grown-up, we can talk.

    I don't necessarily understand all this either, but until I do, I'm not going to lose control of myself, especially publicly. I'm embarassed for you, even if you're not.

    You may not "get" this post, either, but I don't know if you want to. I hope you do.

    Good luck to you.

  • BartB

    Message to Bill: you are controlled by what you hate. Thanks for setting another fine example.


  • Angelica

    I am glad that someone has the courage to speak up. I agree with you Bill and applaud you for taking a stance. All those who reply saying that they are offended, have they forgotten that this is America and you have a right to your opinions. I totally agree with you and hope for the best, even though the future may seem a bit bleak at this time. I hear from a reliable source in the military that they are already assembling military draft committees and it's coming, thanks George Bush (God help our military men and women!)

    A Democrat in Texas

  • Wes Luckey

    This was a disappointing editorial. I'm a longtime Democrat and did support Kerry, but I knew, even after the convention, that he was destined to lose. Each of the political parties ought to realize by now that members of the House and Senate do not make good candidates for a lot of reasons. As well, Kerry was appointed by the D's as the least objectionable choice to defeat Bush, and that sort of selection criteria will never get a nominee elected. Add to this the fact that Kerry had no charisma.

    More importantly, though, he never branded his ideas and campaign well, something that FC spends lots of time discussing. In politics, the campaign that is best able to frame the debate usually wins. And Bush, using the threat of terrorism and fear, did just that. Also, at this point in our nation's history, any sort of succesful policy goal has to be framed in moral relative terms. For example, it would have been easy to show the deficit as being immoral, and tax reductions as really tax deferments to our children. Remember, the vast majority (80%+) of Americans are religious. More now than at anytime in the recent past, we rely on religion and our own personal moral values to guide our lives. 9-11 only made this more apparent. THe Democrats still haven't come to terms with this, to their detriment.

    Yeah, I'm disappointed, but it's creative destruction that makes many ideas better. And that's what we hopefully will see next from the Dems. We better or they will face becoming irrelavent and inconsequential in American life.

    Okay, now that I have your attention, these are my predictions for the future:
    1. More people than ever will sign up to vote by absentee ballot, where available. Regardless of what the conditions were actually like at the polls, all the attention to long lines and poll watchers have made people skittish about poll voting. Absentee, and potentially Internet, voting are a heck of a lot more convenient.
    2. Independent third parties will become more of a political factor in American politics. For many people, this election came down to choosing the lesser of two evils. This could create many opportunties for independent parties to differentiate themselves with new, innovative approaches. Ironically, the rise of third parties would actually help the Democrats, but I believe they may be too narrowly focussed to realize this.
    3. More politicians, particularly Democratic politicians, will be willing to use politicial attack ads. Now, this is more of a reality at the national level. Increasingly, local races will use this as a strategy for no other reason than the fact that it works.
    4. Bush's second term in office will be marked by scandal. The press, previously held at bay because of deference to a wartime president, will now be more willing to question the president's positions and the actions of his staff. Expect stories to break there.

    Okay, for all us Democrats, let's whine a little bit more about Tuesday's results. But then let's get over it. Let's use the energy stemming from our frustration, sadness, and even anger to do positive change in this country. Get active in local politics. Research the facts, form an opinion, and voice it to whoever will listen. Send your ideas to those who run the national party; don't expect them to have all the answers.

    Most of all, let us be thankful for the fact we live in a country, at least for now, where we have the ability to even be able to do this.

    Cheers and better times ahead!
    Uncle Wes

  • don hernandez

    Poor Bill,
    I am reminded of the business axiom, "It takes years to develop valued customer relationships, and only seconds to lose it."

    It is impossible to separate political policy from business, and as such, debate should be welcomed and encouraged at FC. However, your angry emotional outcry is neither constructive or intellectually founded. I respect your opinion (even if you deride mine), but there are other venues on the net if all you want to do is hurl verbal insults at your readers (customers). Your attack is the internet eqivalent of going postal on a good portion of your customer base that makes your dream job possible.

    I doubt any of your readers, entrepreneur or employee, would believe its okay to attack their customers intellect, loyalty or political views, and expect their future business relationship to be unaffected.

    Sadly Bill, the real loser as a result of your tirade isn't your subscribers, yourself, or even John Kerry. The real loser is the management of FC, who entrusted you with strengthening and preserving its relationship with its subscribers. Today you let them down.

  • Earl

    Bill, do you want to do business with anyone who doesn't subscribe to your list of absolutes? Is everyone who lives in the states that Senator Kerry carried, yet who didn't vote for him, cowards?

    Its seems that for you to disagree with someone's position - and vote - is principled and honorable, but for them to disagree - and vote - in disagreement with you is cowardly and based on fear.

    Can you be their friend, and they yours? Can you work in the same company, office or team? Did you say these things out loud to your coworkers at FC who may disagree with you?

    In addition to sounding like you are smarter than everyone who disagrees with you, you have crossed the line to sounding like you are better than them, too. Arrogance never plays well. Your words are those of a workplace bully, an office tyrant and a crashing boor, at best - and my assumption is that you are none of those. Maybe you should stop talking like one.

    Get the politics out of FC. You are ruining a great thing, but its not too late to turn it around. It will take someone who is not a coward, though. My guess is that you are surrounded by great people who are aching to do great work again, if you'll let them - after, of course, you finish "ranting."

    Thanks for insulting me, and all of the other long time and newer subscribers who dare to disagree with you and exercise our rights.

    PS: Its OK with us cowards for you to think and say and write whatever you want, and we will continue to respect you. Let us know when you're ready to respect us in return.


  • Kathy Woody

    Dear Ask, just an observation: you interpret Bill's post as 'sharing thoughts' - would that it were only that; in fact, it is a vicious personal attack on the legitimacy of the voice and the vote of those who do not see the world as he does. Take away the 'nuance' of his phrasing and you have Joanna, comparing the president of the U.S. to history's most evil and brutal figure. The difference in that worldview and mine goes much deeper than mere disagreement, and calls into question the entire premise of analysis and opinion. I'm quite curious whether you can see this, because I don't think it is a small thing when decent and intelligent people fail so fundamentally to understand one another. Cheers, Kathy

  • M. Russell Stewart

    Hmmm...maybe Mr. Breen was on the wrong end of John Byrne's unfortunate responsibility described in the November issue's "Letter From the Editor." It would seem only fitting seeing how his talents could better be used at the "Weekly World News" than at such a wonderfully objective magazine (hopefully still)as FC.

    Here's one reason major reason I voted for Bush, rather than Kerry. George W. Bush understands what a family really is. If anyone would like a more inspired description, see

    Now, maybe what will unite this country is a large earthquake in which the West Coast and Northern East Coast separate from the mainland and become their very own island countries. Then the ranting and raving can propogate unrestrained by reason and self-control forever onward.

  • Leslie

    I live in the reddest of red states-- Mississippi. However, I am not offended, but relieved by Bill Breen's posting. It is important to remember that millions of voters voted for the "Blue Candidate" in red states as well. We share their beliefs and concerns. I have been saddened by the divisiveness, misinformation, and rhetoric that has come from those who portend that their party has a monopoly on "values" or "patriotism." As a former resident of the blue states however, I do agree that folks in NYC, Los Angeles, San Fancisco, and Washington, DC often tend to suffer from delusions of grandeur. There are creative, intelligent, innovaters in every state. They might just be a bit more appreciated by the masses more in some states that others.

  • Tony

    I am by no means a fan of GWB (I disagree with many of his policies and have never voted for him), but I think you go way over the top in your questioning of the motivations of Bush/Cheney voters and asserting that they lack courage and intelligence.

    Yes there are some dumb people out there who unfortunately exercise their constitutional right to vote. They are not confined to the Red States by the way. But the vast majority of voters on both sides take their obligation seriously and vote based on their values, beliefs and conscience. I have no doubt that this was the case on Tuesday.

    As a Kerry voter it pains me to say that the main reason he lost is not because the majority that voted for Bush are stupid or cowardly people who supported their candidate out of fear. Rather it was because Kerry simply did not do a good enough job of convincing enough Americans that he would be a better President than Bush. And I suspect, a significant number of people who ended up voting for Bush could have been persauded otherwise - Bush's job approval rating was hovering slightly below 50% at election time.

    One other thing about the Red States - I live in the Boston area now and have dwelled in the Northeast all my life - but anyone who thinks people in the South and West are cowardly and afraid should take a look at the names and hometowns of the soldiers dying everyday in Iraq. The majority seem to be from Red States.

    Bill, I don't agree with your rant, but I do forgive you and certainly won't hold it against Fast Company magazine which I look forward to reading over the next four years and hopefully beyond.

    Some advice - the next time you write a piece - even a blog - driven by strong emotions, sit on it for a few days and then read it over when you've calmed down a bit.

  • Joanna

    All I can think of is 1930 Germany with the rise of Hitler, both GW and Adolf share many traits, in particular the ability to prey upon fear. If I remember my history, those that could got out of Germany and that is what I propose to do -- I see no hope whatsoever as this country under this leadership. We are isolated from the rest of the world and now we will build huge walls so that we are not contaiminated by what we fear most -- what we don't understand -- stem cells, nanotechnology, biotechnology, other cultures. Next we will invade Syria -- just wait and see -- anything to keep attention focused on other than real issues like out looming budget crisis as foreign investment continues to decrease and the rest of the world ceases to purchase our culture. Enjoy -- I will look on from another location.

  • Jerry

    I do believe this article has touched a nerve. I could not vote for Bush because of the deceiving him and his administration has done to this country. Other than fear, what possible reason is there to vote for Bush?? The war on terror is completly off track, the economy is not getting better, jobs are being lost overseas daily, and the rest of the world views us a bullies.
    What possible reason could have to vote for Bush other than fear?

  • Jack Wilson

    Once again we read a tantrum from an elite liberal snob who does not have a clue how the red state population thinks or feels. You operate out of a hatred for a true neo conservative president. Your irrational rants are a joke.

    Have you read the 9-11 Commission Report or just what the NY Times or CBS (Dan Rather) have said. (We know how reliable they are -- NOT). Yes they did not find any large production factories of WMD; but they did find a lot of small production facilities of WMD. These facilities could be scaled up for producing of larger quantities if needed.

    No, there was no relationship with Osama and Saddam about 9-11 attack, but there was evidence of increasing contact. Now a fair number of terrorists have entered into Iraq to fight directly against the troops. For me I rather have them fight in Iraq than in US.

    As for GWB lying that is probably the greatest insult. It has become a mantra by the liberal elitist snobs so much that they believe it with no evidence. It is also apparent that those who have stated this forget that Clinton, Gore and even John Kerry have stated that Iraq had WMD. But for political expendiency the rant is that GWB lied. Who are the liars?

    Another issue is that GWB made decisions based on the intelligence data available to him as any executive would do. But the elitist liberal snobs do not understand that fact. Their irrational emotional hate of GWB blinds them to what a great leader he truly is and will be.

    He most likely will be compared to Ronald Reagan after he leaves office. Many conservative political pundits have commented that many of his proposals tend to be on the more radical side, while Kerry's ideas tended to be typical liberal knee jerk reactionary ones.

    Peggy Noonan has stated that GWB is one of the most courageous president she has witnessed. Je has been willing to act or do things very differently than previous presidents. Kerry never understood that we are at war, not a legal criminal action. Now that the Republicans have increased their senate majority and the defeat of Tom Daschle, we should see a lot of progressive conservative programs enacted. Hopefully, we will see the obstructionist minority silenced.

    The press went after GWB National Guard experience that backfired on them. But not one looked at John Kerry's military record. When you have 195 out 200 military men from the same unit opposing you, pay attention. There is also substantial evidence that Kerry received a less than honorable discharge during the 1970s. This was changed after Jimmy Carter pardoned all in 1977.

    I am no uneducated hick. I have a doctorate in psychology from a NE university. Also, I have done post doctoral studies and own a consulting and coaching group.

    In closing I quote "To preserve your freedoms don't let the bastards (liberals) wear you down." Or in the words of Mrs. Heniz-Kerry "Shove it!"