In June of 1788, “anti-rats” and “pro-rats” descended upon Richmond to argue during Virginia’s Ratifying Convention. All eyes were on the Old Dominion, America’s largest, richest and most influential state, with borders stretching to the Mississippi River at the time.

Virginia was home to some of America’s most influential leaders — Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Mason and Wythe. Virginia had been slow to ratify.  Among the 13 states, it would be the 10th to confirm. Leaders in New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island were watching before casting their votes.

At the onset of the Richmond convention, delegates were evenly divided regarding ratification. Some remained to be swayed by the most compelling arguments.

Delegates debated for days in oppressive heat in the Richmond Theater building, which served as Virginia’s temporary state capitol, at the crest of Broad Street overlooking Church Hill. Powerful states’ rights forces lined up against Virginia’s ratification, led by Patrick Henry.

Henry took the floor for hours at a time, attempting to sway indecisive voters with urgent oratory that previewed the modern political filibuster.  As large as some European nations at the time, Virginia prided its independence and feared an over-reaching national government.

Henry advised delegates that slavery, on which Virginia’s economy depended, could be outlawed under a new system. He summed up his views on the ratifying argument: “I smelt a rat.”

James Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution, argued eloquently on the Constitution’s behalf. But at age 37, he was among the younger Founding Fathers. It would take the authority of a more senior leader to sway the crowd in the final round.

In Richmond after days of dispute, all attention turned to elder patriot George Wythe, 62. Wythe had served as a signer of the Declaration of Independence, consequential member of the Continental Congress, speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, influential judge, Virginia attorney general, mentor to Thomas Jefferson, and America’s first and only professor of law at the time.

He had signed the Declaration of Independence with the high hope of a strong nation, a future leader among nations.

The year before, he had traveled to Philadelphia to the national Constitution Convention at his own expense, putting his law practice income on hold. As one of America’s most respected authorities on government and parliamentary procedure, he was quickly chosen to write the rules of the convention. Without standard operating procedures, the assembly could easily have become disorganized.

Delegates from the 13 former colonies convened in Philadelphia from June through September 1787 to debate the form of America’s future government, behind closed doors in humid summer weather. Finally, the Constitution was released to the public on Sept. 17, 1787.

In the Virginia Ratifying Convention nine months later, Wythe was appointed chairman of the Committee of the Whole and presided over acrimonious debate for more than three weeks.  Wearied by arguments, he stepped down from his chair to address the convention, his voice shaking with emotion.

Admired for his integrity and patriotism, the elder statesman commanded the assembly’s full focus. He reminded delegates that the country’s current Articles of Confederation were weak, that the new Constitution provided a way forward, and that it would certainly be strengthened with the promise of a future Bill of Rights as the first 10 amendments. Although Patrick Henry wanted to have the last say, Wythe then called for a vote.

A list of those voting in the affirmative shows that the narrow margin for approval came from Wythe’s former law school students at the College of William & Mary and others affiliated with the college. At the time, this was Virginia’s preeminent institution of higher learning, the second oldest college in America after Harvard.

By a vote of 89 to 79, the decision to ratify prevailed on June 25. New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island followed Virginia’s lead, making ratification unanimous among the United States of America. Two of the decisions in favor were exceedingly narrow: New York by only three votes and Rhode Island by only two.

Oscar Shewmake, former dean of the William & Mary Law School, founded by Wythe, described his contribution: “But for Wythe’s services in the Convention of 1788, Virginia would not have ratified the Constitution of the United States as it stood … The entire course of American history may have been materially changed.”

The Constitution became America’s official governing document in 1789. It has survived as the world’s oldest written constitution.

Historian Suzanne Munson is author of the recently published book about George Wythe’s prodigious teaching legacy, “First in Law, First in Leadership: William & Mary,” from which this account is drawn. She is also the author of a comprehensive George Wythe biography, “Jefferson’s Godfather.” She will have a book signing of “First in Law, First in Leadership” on Oct. 13, from 1 to 4 p.m. at the Barnes & Noble in New Town.

Following the massacre that suppressed the student-led protests, Wang become the most wanted man in China. After being arrested, he was incarcerated in Beijing’s notorious Qincheng Prison on and off for more than seven years. Finally, he was permanently exiled from China and came to live in the United States. Here he earned master’s and doctorate degrees in history from Harvard and began a teaching career in Chinese political history.

Several years ago, Wang launched a think tank in Washington called “Dialog China.” He has written more than 20 monographs about his experiences dealing with Chinese authorities and recently published a new book, his first in English, titled “The Fifty Questions on China.”

To introduce Wang to the college community, William & Mary’s Global Research Institute is organizing a talk by him at 5 p.m. on Sept. 26 at the Tucker Hall theater. The free talk will be followed by a reception and book signing and is open to the public.

Wang, who also visited William & Mary in 2019, is known not just as a very level-headed scholar of Chinese history, but also as someone who lived through the various upheavals of Communist China’s political landscape.

“I want to tell students at William & Mary who are interested in China that China is a very complex country, where seemingly contradictory phenomena coexist,” he said in an interview with The Gazette. “This makes it difficult to understand China correctly. It is important to listen to the voices of ordinary Chinese people. If you visit China, you should know that not only is the government’s narrative unreliable, but ordinary people often have to tell lies.”

Wang casts a skeptical eye on how the U.S.-China relationship is viewed.

“Currently the situation is that the U.S. hopes to treat China as a competitor, but the Chinese government continually tells its people that the U.S. is China’s enemy,” he said. “More importantly, the Chinese Communist Party is trying to export its political governance model worldwide, including the U.S.

“In this context, saying that the U.S. and China can compete is self-deception. The premise of competition is that both sides must follow the rules, but the CCP does not abide by the rules.”

I asked Wang, what changes would have taken place in China if Deng Xiaoping, the Chinese leader, had not approved the military intervention and the massacre at Tiananmen?

“If the CCP had not suppressed the protests and had accepted the students’ demands, China would likely have begun political reforms in 1989,” he said. “If that had happened, not only would society be more stable, but economic development would be healthier. The former because the abuse of power by officials would have been curbed, and the latter because less corruption would result in a fairer distribution of wealth.”

I asked him, what does the reaction of the United States — and the West — to the Tiananmen Square massacre tell him about how democracies respond to actions by dictatorial regimes?

“In 1989, when the Tiananmen Square massacre happened the whole world condemned and sanctioned China,” he responded. “However Deng Xiaoping’s CCP group kept spreading the narrative that China’s reforms would not stop. Western countries were deceived into lifting the sanctions. Today, not only has China not continued the reforms, but actually regressed. This is a big lesson, showing (you can) never believe the promises of the Chinese Communist Party.”

Although the Chinese Communist Party’s rule is often described as pervasive, there are lapses.

According to Wang, after the Tiananmen Square massacre, the government issued a nationwide warrant for the arrest of 21 student leaders. Wang was listed as the No. 1 most wanted. However, the warrant was riddled with errors. His personal information was full of inaccuracies. He was 20 years old at the time, but listed as 24 years old. The warrant said he was from Shandong, but he was from Jilin.

When arrested, Wang firmly denied that he was the person listed on the warrant. Nevertheless, he spent seven years in prison.

Frank Shatz is a Williamsburg resident. He is the author of “Reports from a Distant Place,” the compilation of his selected columns. The book is available at the Bruton Parish Shop and Amazon.com.

On Sept. 10, ABC moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis failed to live up to that standard by interjecting themselves as fact checkers. Worse, it was completely one-sided and focused on Donald Trump’s false or misleading statements, which while real, ignored those from Kamala Harris to include disingenuous denials or evasions about her views on guns, abortion, policing, ICE and more.

I am sensitive to that issue for many reasons, one of which is the way that I used to teach economics, American government and also a course called Problems of Democracy. The format was lecture/discussion, and I was the only teacher in the building who arranged the students’ desks into an inward facing rectangle so that they could see each other’s faces. I often stood in the center like a talk show host. Topics were introduced by me — say a particular U.S. Supreme Court decision involving the First Amendment — and then the floor was thrown open to students to comment, to compare and contrast the majority opinion(s), the dissenting opinion(s), and of course their own opinions of the case.

It was a little bit like a daily town hall, except that after I was finished presenting the opinions, the students took over and all I did was moderate the discussion and make sure that it remained civil and respectful. I did not correct a student, even if I knew they had gotten something wrong, because this wasn’t about winning or persuading; it was simply about sharing views even if the basis for some of those views was inaccurate. Moreover, my interjecting myself as a fact checker would have had a chilling effect on my students’ willingness to participate, and that was the last thing I wanted to do.

In the end, more than the details of a case, or an occasional misstatement of fact, they would remember the most important lesson, which was to listen with the intent of understanding and not arguing back in order to win a point. That is the only way to truly understand an issue, which is impossible if we focus instead on how we’re going to respond. Listening should be proactive, not reactive. But of all the communication skills we were taught in school (reading, writing, speaking), how many of us have ever taken a course in active listening?

There was only one case where my methodology failed, and that was the year that Roe v. Wade was decided. Knowing it was surely in the minds of my 12th grade students, I chose it as a topic for discussion. That was a mistake. The emotions were so high on the opposing sides that I lost control of the discussion and had to deal with students in tears on both sides of the issue, which really wasn’t the point. I wanted them to understand the four primary governmental interests that the Court had defined in Roe and also to be familiar with the majority and dissenting opinions, but to no avail.

Now, half a century later, I still encounter people who are incapable of discussing abortion in a scholarly and unemotional way, and most of whom have never read Roe v. Wade, Casey v. Planned Parenthood or Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, despite having such strong opinions.

Back to the debate, regular readers of this column already know that I am no fan of former President Trump. Quite the opposite. But I hope they also recall that the expansion of governmental size, scope, cost and power under modern progressivism, exemplified by Vice President Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, is one of my greatest fears. And so, I can report with some degree of objectivity that Trump’s performance at the recent debate was abysmal. He fell back upon his endlessly repeated hyperbolic claims, exaggerations, and falsehoods instead of laying out a vision for the American people. Surely his debate preparatory team must have made every effort to dissuade him from resorting to his usual rally/stump speech, but he can’t help himself.

Harris did not need the help of the ABC moderators. She would have walked away the winner of that debate without their unfortunate and inappropriate intervention. Despite her multiple evasions and falsehoods, she came across as prepared, disciplined and in control of herself. She wisely “let Trump be Trump” for all the nation to see.

Now, as we begin the voting process, the key will be the undecideds, especially in the swing states. Long after those voters have forgotten the details of the recent debate, they will remember how the two candidates made them feel. Donald Trump likely made a lot of them squirm in their seats. Kamala Harris likely made them feel more at ease by comparison, and if she wins, more than anything else, that may be the reason. But neither, if elected, will govern with a mandate.

Joseph Filko has taught economics and American government and lives in Williamsburg. He can be reached at jfilko1944@gmail.com.

Looking back over the last four years, I am immensely proud of what this City Council has accomplished for Williamsburg. Looking forward, I know the best three candidates to continue this progress are Pat Dent, Barbara Ramsey and Ayanna Williams. I am excited to endorse their candidacies today.

Vice Mayor Dent and Councilwoman Ramsey have served Williamsburg exceedingly well for four and eight years, respectively. Since 2020, we have worked to get our part of the Historic Triangle back on track post-COVID through a successful vaccine clinic and support for local businesses.

Outside of new landmark capital improvement projects, my colleagues Pat and Barb have also been advocates for transparency and inclusion for the citizens of Williamsburg. In 2023, the city was awarded the Virginia Municipal League’s “Communication Award” for our innovative Future Festivals, which sought citizen input from all corners of Williamsburg. Their continued service on the council will elicit similarly positive outcomes, making our city better through fun events, greater public art and more.

Thinking about the best new champion for Williamsburg’s future, I am heartened by Ayanna Williams’ dedication to local service. Ayanna is the only non-incumbent running on clear policy positions, which prioritize education, safety and keeping our tax rate low. As a member of the City Council, Ayanna will be able to continue the decade and a half of younger representation in Williamsburg. I know Ayanna is up to the challenge of being a voice for this constituency and all city residents.

Pat Dent, Barbara Ramsey and Ayanna Williams represent a formidable team poised to build upon our achievements and deliver continued success.

Caleb Rogers, outgoing Williamsburg City Council member

___

Pat Dent for City Council

I have had the opportunity to observe the dedication and commitment that Pat Dent has made to the city of Williamsburg. As the current vice mayor, Pat works tirelessly for the citizens, making decisions that benefit those who live, work and attend school in Williamsburg.

Pat Dent’s integrity and hard work as a dedicated public servant are evident in his background. He was a committed firefighter who worked his way up from fireman to chief, retiring as the chief of the city of Williamsburg. His experience and leadership are a testament to his dedication to our safety and well-being. Not only was he elected by the people of Williamsburg to serve on the City Council, but he was also selected as the vice mayor by his fellow council members.

Pat Dent is not just a council member; he’s a neighbor. His approachability is unmatched, as he has consistently shown up for the community, whether it’s at public events or in one-on-one conversations.

Of those running for council and even those currently serving, Pat is uniquely qualified to lead Williamsburg into the future on matters of public safety, economy and infrastructure.

Your vote matters. If you want a leader who truly listens and acts on your behalf, I urge you to cast your vote for Pat Dent.

Andy Bell, Williamsburg

Ryan A. Musto, director of forums and research initiatives at William & Mary’s Global Research Institute, informed the college community that the GRI is hosting the launch of the book, “The Assault on the State: How the Global Attack on Modern Government Endangers our Future.”

W&M professor Stephen Hanson and University of California, Irvine professor Jeffrey Kopstein authored the book and, according to Musto, “offer an impassioned plea to defend modern government against those who seek to destroy it.”

Quoting the authors, Musto poses the question: “What if the state as we know it didn’t exist? Our air would be poisonous, our votes uncounted and our markets dysfunctional. Yet across the world, in countries as diverse as Hungary, Israel, the UK, and the U.S., attacks on the modern state and its workforce are intensifying. The dangers of state erosion imperil every aspect of our lives.”

Both authors will join the Global Research Institute on Thursday for a conversation about the book. The event is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. in the the Hive Event Space on the ground floor of the library.

I asked professors Hanson and Kopstein, what is the message they would like to convey to their audience at William & Mary?

“There has been a great deal of attention paid to the decline of democracy around the world,” they replied together. “We share this concern, but taking a broader historical perspective shows that an even graver political threat now faces us, the global erosion of the modern state institutions governed by the rule of law and the reestablishment of a much older form of personalistic government.”

They quoted the great German sociologist Max Weber, who called it patrimonialism: rule by traditional father figures who run the state as a kind of “family business.” Promoting their family members and loyalists over professionals and experts.

“We show how this threat emerged from Russia and has since diffused around the world,” Hanson said.

The motivating force for writing their book was, the authors said, that our state institutions are under attack and that without them there wouldn’t be effective safeguards.

Significantly, it was the “canary in the coal mine,” that triggered the authors’ interest in the subject of the importance of the role of experts in governance.

“Everyone remembers well the attack on public health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic,” they said. “All of us watched President Trump sideline his own professionals and issue wild and unsound advice. But this is only the tip of the iceberg: attacks on climate science and the EPA are well known. Less well known are attacks on food science, financial regulatory agencies, the judiciary, intelligence agencies and the military.”

The authors continued: “These attacks have occurred on not only in the U.S., but also all over the world where personalistic rulers come to power. The result is decaying infrastructure and inattention to problems that could threaten not only our democracy but the survival of the species.”

Hansen and Kopstein maintain that the modern, impersonal state is a gigantic achievement in human affairs, but a new brand of rulers — both democratic and undemocratic — has questioned its value.

The attacks, the authors say, are morphing into power grabs by self-aggrandizing politicians who attempt to seize control of the state for themselves and their cronies.

“The dangers of state erosion imperil every aspect of our lives,” the authors argue. “We outline a strategy that can reverse this destructive trend before humanity is plunged back into the pathological personalistic politics of pre-modern times.”

Frank Shatz is a Williamsburg resident. He is the author of “Reports from a Distant Place,” the compilation of his selected columns. The book is available at the Bruton Parish Shop and Amazon.com.

Although I didn’t know it at the time, he and I have something in common besides writing: we both resigned from the Republican Party in 2016. Neither one of us perceives MAGA as reflective of the great conservative/classical liberalism traditions in America, exemplified by such luminaries as William F. Buckley, Russell Kirk and Charles Krauthammer, but rather as a manifestation of a newly emerged right-wing populism bordering on demagoguery. Once during a recent interview, Will described an offensive comment made by Donald Trump as the latest “sulfuric belch” coming out of Mar-a-Lago.

In 2014, Will had written a column in The Washington Post that made the argument that our presidents “have been too much with us.”

“Promising promiscuously, they have exaggerated government’s proper scope and actual competence, making the public perpetually disappointed and surly,” Will wrote. “Inflating executive power, they have severed it from constitutional restraints.”

There was a time when the occupants of the Oval Office were more distant figures. They weren’t in the news every day. Of course, during times of national crisis, we expect to hear from our presidents, and so we look back on Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “fireside chats” as a form of reassurance during the twin traumas of the Great Depression and World War II.

Today, thanks in large part to the 24-hour news cycle and social media, we are on the receiving end of an endless firehose full of news, commentary and the ever-present visages of the presidents. It’s also good for ratings, clicks and subscriptions. But even back in 2014, Will probably could not have imagined the smothering presence and commentary that presidents generate today. There’s no escape from it short of a backpacking trip into the wilderness that leaves all forms of communication behind, and many of us would probably consider that to be too risky.

The nation has been reading, listening to and watching State of the Union addresses ever since Woodrow Wilson, but can anyone argue seriously that those have not degenerated into little more than political pep rallies, with partisan legislators jumping to their feet and applauding after every presidential declarative statement while the other side of the aisle sits on their hands? Surely, says Will, we can function as a nation without “constant presidential tutoring and hectoring.” He references Grover Cleveland, whom he describes as “the last Democratic president with proper understanding of this office’s place in our constitutional order.”

He argues that while some degree of presidential involvement, leadership and commentary is appropriate, more is not necessarily better. Presidents should not always be trying to take the country somewhere as though it were a parcel to be carried to a new destination. Rather, the country “is the spontaneous order of 316 million people making billions of daily decisions, cooperatively contracting together, moving the country in gloriously unplanned directions.” This writer would emphasize “unplanned” as the key word there.

And so Will reminds us that, it is not the chief executive, but rather the Congress, that is supposed to be the initiating branch of government, the direct representatives of the people.

He goes on to say, rather boldly, that future presidents should suggest to the public that they should tell their troubles to their spouse, their friends or their clergy, and not try to portray themselves as the “empathizer in chief,” insulting the intelligence of the people by pretending to feel their pain.

Finally, Will suggests that future presidents make the following commitment: “I will not try to come to the attention of any television camera more than once a week, and only then if I am convinced that I can speak without violating what will be my administration’s motto: Don’t speak unless you can improve the silence.”

Joseph Filko has taught economics and American government and lives in Williamsburg. He can be reached at jfilko1944@gmail.com.

Recently I joined more than a dozen community members and leaders who gathered at the Maximum Building for “Conversation on Education,” a conversation on the Williamsburg-James City County School Board hosted by school board members Kimberley Hundley and Randy Riffle.

After a presentation that focused on how the board operates, we gathered in a circle for a Q&A period to discuss issues that community members have about the school board, how books are selected for public school libraries and communication channels for resolving conflicts.

Another program, “Race, Religion and Education: the Path Forward,” sponsored by Saint John Baptist Church and the NAACP Religious Affairs Committee, brought together local educational and church leaders to discuss how race, religion and education intersect and how we can move forward. Moderated by Lawrence Gholson, president of the York-James City-Williamsburg branch of the NAACP, the program was attended by more than 60 people who were treated to a tasty dinner and a forum featuring Maureen Lee Elgersman, director of the Bray School Lab, Crystal Lassiter, the Rev. Carlon Lassiter and the Rev. Jeffrey Smith. The forum was so enlightening it’s returning on Oct. 23 by popular demand.

Two other noteworthy community conversations that occurred early this year are the “Commonwealth Conversations,” presented by the Greater Williamsburg Chamber of Commerce and The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, and “Let’s Talk Civics” educational series, sponsored by Inner Peace Coalition, NAACP’s political action committee and the Ladies Impacting Professional Systems.

“Commonwealth Conversations” was a five-part series aimed at bringing together influential leaders with the Williamsburg-area business community for dialogue. The session I attended focused on economic growth and development and featured Jason El Koubi, president of the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, the state economic development authority.

During the “Let’s Talk Civics” educational series, I gained insights about the Virginia General Assembly and role of both delegates and lobbyists in getting legislation passed.

The series provided a blueprint for how to connect with local delegates to get your voice heard. A discussion led by Jackie Glass, a local Virginia delegate, kicked off the series.

There are a myriad of community programs scheduled for this fall including the fifth annual Heal Greater Williamsburg/Heal the Nation Community Day.

This event started in October 2020 as a Colonial Williamsburg rally co-sponsored by Coming to the Table-Historic Triangle and Williamsburg Action. We joined forces to bring local leaders together to discuss what their organizations were doing to facilitate racial healing during a climate of national social unrest. In 2022, the format and name was changed to make the event more far-reaching, interactive, educational and family-oriented. Additionally, the location changed to James City County to reflect the commitment to serving Greater Williamsburg.

“It’s a relaxing day to bring people together to enjoy family-friendly activities and to participate in community discussions and workshops to provide tools to have civil conversations about racial issues,” said board member Fred Liggin, who will lead a community forum about Jewish and African American collaborations on civil rights issues.

It’s been more than 60 years since Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel stood with the Rev. Martin Luther King to advocate for civil rights to end racial injustices. Heschel once said, “Racism is man’s gravest threat to man — the maximum of hatred for a minimum of reason.”

There’s a seat at the table for you for this courageous conversation! I hope you will join us. When we come together to build a more welcoming and inclusive community, we all win!

Laura D. Hill is the founder and director of Coming to the Table-Historic Triangle, a program of the Virginia Racial Healing Institute. Learn more about her work at www.varacialhealinginstitute.org.

Addressing the Iranian nation-state threat is dramatically more complicated that the single lone shooter case we failed to prevent last month. Coordination and communications between the Secret Service and local law enforcement in Pennsylvania was problematic at best but interagency coordination within the U.S. government is often no better. After every major intelligence failure such as 9/11 we appoint “independent review commissions” that consistently find that agencies did not share the information they had, their computer systems and data bases could not “talk” to each other, and that the chain of command was not clearly established. These systemic weaknesses provide avenues for committed terrorists to exploit. Let’s consider what Iran might do.

By way of background, remember that revenge for Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani’s killing by a drone strike is one of the factors driving Iran to target current and previous U.S. officials. Given that Iran is the world’s largest producer of combat drones, I posit the following hypothetical drone attack scenario:

1. Multiple simultaneous drone launches from at least three different directions. These would be devastating to soft targets such as outside campaign rallies, open baseball and football stadiums, or Taylor Swift concerts.

2. Use of simplified Iranian Shaheed drone guidance components. A 10-pound Shaheed-like guidance system would easily fit into the same packages that Amazon and Walmart deliver to us daily.

3. A 15-pound explosive or chemical payload, locally manufactured or shipped in another Walmart box.

4. A delivery drone with that payload and a 5-mile range and 60-minute flight time can be ordered from Amazon and delivered to a garage near you for about $1,000.

5. These drones are highly maneuverable and can be programmed to use structures and wooded areas for en route concealment.

These would not be slapdash amateur drone assemblies. Iran would have obtained these components, assembled, tested and perfected the design in Iran and provided detailed instructions to small cells in the U.S. Recall the Hamas practice videos using motorcycle paragliders? Iran would similarly practice and perfect these strikes.

Now, how could we prepare to protect against such a threat? Short answer is that it is well beyond the capability of the Secret Service. The first requirement to address this class of threat is to have overhead drone or aircraft presence of our own with moving target detection. The Department of Defense has some systems that can accomplish this, but they are designed to address larger, faster targets. Slow, small targets are much harder to detect. Secondly, once detected we need to be able to destroy these drones.

Here, the problem is that it would take many rounds to destroy each drone and the drones would be continuously above and around thousands of people, but these rounds have to come to earth somewhere. There would be no way to avoid significant collateral casualties. The “perimeter” is now many square miles rather than a few hundred yards. While Intelligence assets will continue to try to identify potential Iranian cells, the terrorists are likely already in this country, according to FBI Director Christopher Wray. Small cells of four to five terrorists would require little more than a garage and a mailing address to assemble and launch these drone weapons.

I have no solution to offer, but as you continue to hear the news and congressional pontification over the next several weeks ask yourselves if what you’re hearing seems serious enough to address this threat. Ouch! I’m scaring myself with this simple scenario and the real threat is much more complex than the one I just created.

As a country, we can’t cower indoors; if we do that, the terrorists win. What should we as individuals do? Stop going to games and parks? Buy and wear Kevlar clothing? Do nothing different and trust the government to protect us? Some other choice …?

After being a flight test engineer for advanced aircraft along with high level work in intelligence, foreign material exploitation and digital systems, Brad Gale spent a combined 60 years in the aerospace and defense industry and as a consultant in advanced aircraft, missile and concept designs. He lives in James City County.

Edgar Doleman, Wicomico Church

Lynch and his family settled in Williamsburg after his 30-year career in government service, mostly overseas. His expertise was in public health care, biosecurity and emergency planning. He holds a post-graduate degree in physician assistant studies and is a doctor of medical science.

I asked Lynch, what made him choose Williamsburg as a place for retirement?

“I have deep interest in history,” Lynch said in an interview with The Gazette. “I value education and enjoy learning. The combination of Virginia’s significant history, the presence of Colonial Williamsburg, and the opportunities offered by the College of William & Mary, made retiring to Williamsburg an easy choice.”

In addition, accepting the position of president of the Williamsburg chapter of the SAR provided him with an opportunity to make a difference in the Williamsburg-James City County community.

“The Williamsburg chapter is the perfect vehicle to accomplish this goal,” he said. “It is one of the largest in Virginia, with membership roster approaching 180 members.”

Lynch pointed out that the chapter has an excellent relationship with The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and the Historic Virginia Land Conservancy. This cooperation enables SAR to commemorate the July 6, 1781, Battle of Green Spring, as well as the commemoration of the Battle of Spencer’s Ordinary, which took place on June 26, 1781. The commemoration is held in Freedom Park in cooperation with James City County.

I asked Lynch, what does SAR represent that resonates with him and made him become a member?

“Continuity,” he said. “It represents the continuity of our American ideals. Like the United States Military Academy’s Long Grey Line, the SAR has its own long variegated line. Each member of SAR is a descendant of someone who supported the patriot cause during the Revolutionary War. Also one of SAR’s functions is educating people about the Revolutionary War and the formulation of the idea leading to the foundation of the United States.”

Lynch believes that the educational component is a vital part of SAR’s mission. He is determined to lead the way.

The Williamsburg chapter of SAR has established working relationships with other chapters, including the Thomas Nelson Jr. and Richmond chapters of SAR, the Ann Wager and Williamsburg chapters of the Daughters of the American Revolution and the George Wythe Society of the Children of the American Revolution.

“My intention,” Lynch said, “is to increase public awareness of the Battle of Green Spring and tell the story of the Virginia militiamen who fought there. Too often these men, members of units raised in numerous Virginia counties are ignored or swept to the side in the histories of the cattle. The VA250 celebrations provide an opportunity to tell their stories.”

According to Lynch, so far, the Williamsburg chapter of SAR had identified 161 men confirmed or with highly probable presence at the battle. In addition, the local SAR chapter has identified 68 State Line or Virginia Continental Line physicians, as well as 51 doctors in the Virginia Navy.

“We will soon begin writing their stories. They won’t be forgotten,” Lynch said.

Although Lynch‘s main interest is the study of American history, he cherishes the opportunity to have lived overseas and be exposed to different cultures.

“I believe my family and I am the better for it,” he said.

In fact, at family reunions, Lynch is never short of amusing stories from his overseas stays. One of them describes his family’s visit to an old castle in Germany.

“One of my young children was wearing plastic knight armor. He ran up to a man and demanded to know if he had seen any bad knights. The man, who spoke broken English, paused and then solemnly acknowledged, “I indeed had some bad nights.”

Frank Shatz is a Williamsburg resident. He is the author of “Reports from a Distant Place,” the compilation of his selected columns. The book is available at the Bruton Parish Shop and Amazon.com.