How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution


This is from The Tenth Amendment Center.


When people think of the causes of the American War for Independence, they think of slogans like “no taxation without representation” or cause célèbre like the Boston Tea Party.

In reality, however, what finally forced the colonials into a shooting war with the British Army in April 1775 was not taxes or even warrant-less searches of homes and their occupation by soldiers, but one of many attempts by the British to disarm Americans as part of an overall gun control program, according to David B. Kopel.

Furthermore, had the American colonies lost their war for independence, the British government intended to strip them of all their guns and place them under the thumb of a permanent standing army.

In his paper titled “How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution,” Kopel claims that various gun control policies by the British following the Boston Tea Party, including a ban on firearm and gunpowder importation, tells us not only the purpose of the Second Amendment, but its relevance within the context of today’s gun control debate.

“The ideology underlying all forms of American resistance to British usurpations and infringements was explicitly premised on the right of self-defense of all inalienable rights,” Kopel writes. “From the self-defense foundation was constructed a political theory in which the people were the masters and government the servant, so that the people have the right to remove a disobedient servant. The philosophy was not novel, but was directly derived from political and legal philosophers such as John Locke, Hugo Grotius, and Edward Coke.”

Kopel writes that two important things underlined the American response to the British policies. One was the practical concept of self-defense, which British disarmament measures was making more difficult. The other, and more relevant concept, was that “Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government.”

Following the Boston Tea Party in December 1773, in which the Sons of Liberty boarded three ships carrying East India Company cargo and dumped forty-six tons of tea ships of tea to prevent its landing, the British government introduced a series of retaliatory measures known as the Intolerable Acts. Among the actions was the closure of Boston’s port, effectively cutting off all trade.

sons of liberty advertisement

However, Kopel writes, “it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them (the Intolerable Acts) that primed many colonists for armed resistance.”

An example of this is a South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, that urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate (bold emphasis added).

When an Army is sent to enforce Laws, it is always an Evidence that either the Law makers are conscious that they had no clear and indisputable right to make those Laws, or that they are bad [and] oppressive. Wherever the People themselves have had a hand in making Laws, according to the first principles of our Constitution there is no danger of Nonsubmission, Nor can there be need of an Army to enforce them.”

The British Army had already been occupying American cities like Boston since 1768, where the notorious Boston Massacre took place in 1770. Following the passage of the intolerable Acts, the Massachusetts Government Act dissolved the provincial government in the state, and General Thomas Gage was appointed royal governor, all which inflamed tensions and prompted backlash from Americans who saw it as the Crown attempted to force their colonies into submission.

Tensions were so great, in fact, that the shooting might have started much earlier than Lexington and Concord. In one incident, General Gage sent Redcoats to squash an “illegal” town meeting in Salem, only to retreat when, according to one of Gage’s aides, three thousand armed Americans arrived.

It was clear to the British that gun control measures would be necessary if they were to maintain their rule. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston, while there were thousands of armed men in Boston and more in the surrounding area.

One solution, Kopel writes, was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder. In September 1774, several hundred Redcoats raided a Charlestown powder house – where militias and merchants stored their gunpowder due to its volatile nature – and seized all but the powder belonging to the colonial government.

“Gage was within his legal rights to seize it,” Kopel concludes. “But the seizure still incensed the public.”

Known as the Powder Alarm, this also nearly started the Revolution when rumors spread wildly that the Redcoats had started shooting. In response, 20,000 militiamen were mobilized that same day and marched on Boston – they later turned around once they learned the truth.

The Powder House ("Magazine") is near the northern edge of this detail from a 1775 map of the Siege of Boston.

Still, Kopel writes, the message was clear:

“If the British used violence to seize arms or powder, the Americans would treat that seizure as an act of war, and the militia would fight,” he writes. “And that is exactly what happened several months later, on April 19, 1775.”

Following the Powder Alarm, the militia of the towns of Worcester County assembled at the Worcester Common, where the Worcester Convention ordered the resignations of all militia officers who had received their commissions from the royal governor. The officers promptly resigned, and then received new commissions from the Worcester Convention, independent of the British administration.

Governor Gage then tried another approach – warrantless searches of people for arms and ammunition without any provocation. The policy drew fierce criticism from the colonists. In fact, the Boston Gazette wrote that of all General Gage‘s offenses, it was this one that outraged people the most.

In October 1774 the Provincial Congress convened, with John Hancock acting as its president. The Congress adopted a resolution that condemned the military occupation of Boston and called on private citizens to arm themselves and engage in military drills. The Provincial Congress also appointed a Committee of Safety, giving it the power to call up the militia. This meant that the militia of Massachusetts “no longer answered to the British government,” Kopel writes. “It was now the instrument of what was becoming an independent government of Massachusetts.”

Not surprisingly, British officials in England were eager to see outright gun confiscation in order to effectively suppress any resistance to their rule. Lord Dartmouth, the royal Secretary of State for America, articulated this sentiment in a letter to Governor Gage.

“Amongst other things which have occurred on the present occasion as likely to prevent the fatal consequence of having recourse to the sword, that of disarming the Inhabitants of the Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut and Rhode Island, has been suggested. Whether such a Measure was ever practicable, or whether it can be attempted in the present state of things you must be the best judge; but it certainly is a Measure of such a nature as ought not to be adopted without almost a certainty of success, and therefore I only throw it out for your consideration.”

Gage warned that the only way to carry it out would be to use violence (bold emphasis added):

“Your Lordship‘s Idea of disarming certain Provinces would doubtless be consistent with Prudence and Safety, but it neither is nor has been practicable without having Recourse to Force, and being Masters of the Country.”

The gun confiscation proposal didn’t remain secret for long, as Gage‘s letter read in the British House of Commons and then publicized in America. Two days after Dartmouth’s letter was sent, King George III ordered the blocked importation of arms and ammunition to America, save those with governments permits. No permit, Kopel writes, was ever granted, and the ban would remain in effect until after the War of Independence ended and the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783.

Having banned the import on all guns and ammunition, the British moved next to seize that which remained in colonial hands. In anticipation of such a seizure at Fort William and Mary in December 1774, four hundred New Hampshire patriots preemptively captured all the material at the fort.

Eventually, Kopel writes “Americans no longer recognized the royal governors as the legitimate commanders-in-chief of the militia. So without formal legal authorization, Americans began to form independent militia, outside the traditional chain of command of the royal governors.”

It was such a militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord against Gage’s Redcoats in April 1775. Following the battle, the colonials lay siege to Boston. The British response in other colonies was a swift move to confiscate or destroy firearms. In Virginia, they seized twenty barrels of gunpowder from the public magazine in Williamsburg and removed the firing mechanisms in the guns, making them impossible to shoot.


Meanwhile, in Boston, General Gage carried out his own gun confiscation policy against the remaining Bostonians, but having learned his lesson from Lexington and Concord, he tried a more furtive approach by offering them the opportunity to leave town if they gave up their arms. Within days, Kopel writes, 2,674 guns were handed over to the British. Gage then promptly turned back on his promise and initially refused to allow anyone to leave. Only food shortages led him to permit more emigration from the city.

Although there is room for speculation as to what would have happened had the American colonies lost the War of Independence, historical documents make some things very clear. When a British victory seemed likely in 1777, Colonial Undersecretary William Knox drafted a plan titled “What Is Fit to Be Done with America?” Intended to prevent any further rebellions in America, the plan called on the establishment of the Church of England in all the colonies, along with a hereditary aristocracy.

But the most ominous measure it would have enacted would have been a permanent standing army, along with the following (emphasis added):

The Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, [and] the Arms of all the People should be taken away . . . nor should any Foundery or manufactuary of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without Licence . . .”

Many gun control policies in America today follow the British blueprint. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, for example, prohibits the import of any firearm which is not deemed suitable for “sporting” purposes by federal regulators. Certain cities openly declare their gun fees are intended not to prevent the wrong people from owning guns, but to discourage all private citizens from owning them.

“To the Americans of the Revolution and the Founding Era,” Kopel writes, “the late twentieth century claim that the Second Amendment is a collective right and not an individual right might have seemed incomprehensible. The Americans owned guns individually, in their homes. They owned guns collectively, in their town armories and powder houses. They would not allow the British to confiscate their individual arms, or their collective arms; and when the British tried to do both, the Revolution began.”

Yet, Kopel believes “the most important lesson for today from the Revolution is about militaristic or violent search and seizure in the name of disarmament,” something that occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Local law enforcement confiscated firearms, many times at gunpoint. A federal district judge properly issued an order finding the gun confiscation to be illegal.

“Gun ownership simpliciter ought never be a pretext for government violence,” Kopel concludes. “The Americans in 1775 fought a war because the king did not agree. Americans of the twenty-first century should not squander the heritage of constitutional liberty bequeathed by the Patriots.”

It is easy to see, then, why modern gun control advocates are the spiritual successors of the British government our forefathers opposed, for while gun grabbers call for restrictions on the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms, they are all but silent on the dangers of having standing army in America or the blatant militarization of police departments.

Their reason for disarming American citizens today is the same as that of the British in the 1770s.


10 fascinating facts about John Hancock

Leave a comment

This is from the National Constitution Center. 

Some interesting trivia about John Hancock.


John Hancock and his signature are two of the best-known elements related to the Declaration of Independence. But how much do you know about the former president of the Continental Congress?










On May 24, 1775, Hancock was named as the presiding officer over the Second Continental Congress, which was meeting in Philadelphia to discuss the military threat posed by the British. A little more than a year later, Hancock was the first to sign the document declaring independence.

Here are 10 facts about the man whose name is now synonymous with impressive signatures.

1. Hancock was a wealthy guy. He was from Massachusetts and his family had money, which he inherited when his uncle died. In fact, Hancock may have been the richest man in New England when he inherited a shipping fortune.

2. He was a bright student. Young Hancock graduated from Harvard at the age of 17. He was also a quick learner in the business world.

3. Hancock should have been a Loyalist, but he wasn’t. With his wealth and social standing, Hancock should have been a leading member of an elite group that didn’t want independence. Instead, he sympathized with people like John and Samuel Adams, who were patriots.

4. John Hancock, smuggler? Well, he may have been an importer, too, but goods like tea that arrived in New England on Hancock’s ships may have escaped paying a duty. The suspicions led the British to seize Hancock’s ship, Liberty, which started a riot. John Adams got Hancock off the hook from the smuggling charges.

5. Hancock also had a role in the Boston Tea Party incident. While Hancock wasn’t on a ship tossing tea overboard, he was at meetings when outrage was vented at the British. He riled up the crowd with a famous statement: “Let every man do what is right in his own eyes.”

6. The British really didn’t like Hancock. The British troops that set out to Lexington and Concord in 1775 may have been hunting for Hancock and his friend, John Adams, as well as for military supplies that were stored for militia use. Hancock had to be talked out of taking the battlefield against the redcoats. And his arrest was ordered by the British after the battles.

7. Hancock was a behind-the-scenes force early in the American Revolution. Hancock raised money for the Revolution, he helped secure troops, and he played a role in getting naval forces organized. But a homesick Hancock left Congress in 1777 to return to Massachusetts.

8. He was the longtime governor of Massachusetts. Hancock was elected in 1780 to lead his state and was its governor for most of the remaining years of his life. He was immensely popular in his home state.

9. Hancock wasn’t at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.Hancock had health issues by 1787 and wasn’t in the Massachusetts delegation. But he played a key role in his state’s ratification of the Constitution, when he overcame his own objections about the lack of a Bill of Rights to urge its passage.

10. What’s the deal with the signature? It’s not true that Hancock signed the Declaration in a big way to taunt the King of England. The legend goes that Hancock stated that “King George will be able to read that!” In reality, Hancock was the first to sign in a matter fitting for the president of the Congress. And only one other person was in the room when he signed it, unlike that famous painting that shows a gaggle of patriots witnessing the event. Hancock did take a big risk: His signature was evidence of treason if things didn’t go well in the war!


American Student Punished for Refusing to Recite Mexican Pledge

1 Comment

This is from Todd  Starnes on Fox News Radio.

What is going on in Texas schools?

First they teach the Boston Tea Party was terrorism.

Then schools teach Allah is God Almighty.

Now a student gets punished for not saying the Mexican Pledge.



A Texas high school student has filed a federal lawsuit against her school and her teachers after she was punished for refusing to salute and recite the Mexican pledge of allegiance.


The Thomas More Law Center filed the suit on behalf of Brenda Brinsdon alleging the McAllen Independent School District violated the 15-year-old girl’s constitutional rights when she was forced to recite the Mexican pledge and sing the Mexican national anthem.

Click here to read the lawsuit.

Brinsdon, who is the daughter of a Mexican immigrant and an American father, refused. She believed it was un-American to pledge a loyalty oath to another country.

Ironically, the school district has a policy that prohibits a school from compelling students to recite the American Pledge of Allegiance.

The district also has a written policy that excuses students from reciting text from the Declaration of Independence if the student “as determined by the district, has a conscientious objection to the recitation.”

“There is a sad trend in public schools across our nation to undermine American patriotism,” said Richard Thompson president of the Thomas More Law Center. “But it’s encouraging to see students like Brenda stand up for America despite pressure from school officials.”

The TMLC told Fox News the district ignored its own rules when Brinsdon refused to recite the pledge of a foreign country.

What’s most troubling is the different treatment for someone wanting to opt out of reciting the American Pledge of Allegiance compared to someone as a matter of conscience wants to opt out of reciting the Mexican pledge,” spokesman Erin Mersino told Fox News.

A spokesman for the McAllen Independent School District told Fox News they had not seen a copy of the lawsuit.

The recitation of the Mexican pledge and the singing of the Mexican national anthem was part of a 2011 Spanish class assignment at Achieve Early College High School.  The teacher, Reyna Santos, required all her students to participate in the lesson.

When Brinsdon refused to back down – she was punished, the lawsuit alleges. She was given an alternative assignment on the Independence of Mexico. The teacher gave her a failing grade – and then required the student to sit in class over a period of several days to listen to other students recite the Mexican flag.

The lawsuit states Brinsdon offered to recite the American pledge in Spanish but the teacher refused her request.

“It’s astonishing that this Texas school would deny Brenda her right of conscience and free speech not to pledge allegiance to a foreign country,” said Thompson. “Too many Americans – including those of Mexican descent – have suffered and died protecting our nation.”

And while she is fluent in Spanish and English and is proud of her Mexican heritage, Brinsdon is a “true-blooded American,” Mersino added.

Mersino said it was especially troubling to watch video of students in the class standing up, extending their arms straight out, palms down and reciting the pledge of a foreign country.

“It’s disturbing – it truly was troubling,” she said.


Texas Students Asked To Design Flag for New Communist Nation

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

This makes me ask  WTF Texas?

First your schools are teaching the Boston Tea Party was terrorism.

Second your schools allah is God Almighty.

He is a figment of the pedophile mohammad.

Now you want your students to make a Communist Flag.

It is time for Governor Rick Perry to get his head out of his ass and stop this.

Texas student flag project

As America becomes more liberal, there are still a few states that stand as beacons of conservatism and good ole American values.  One of those states is Texas.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott ran ads in Albany and New York City telling New York gun owners to move to Texas to get away from the strictest state gun laws in the nation.  Hunting and gun ownership means as much to most Texans as owning a driver’s license or having a job is to others.  It’s more than a right, it’s a way of life that they will guard with their lives.

The Texas state legislature, with the endorsement of Abbott and Gov. Rick Perry, passed a law that forbids any abortion provider in the state from receiving taxpayer funds.  This hit Planned Parenthood facilities in the state hard and has helped cut down the number of abortions.

But when it comes to the education of their children, Texas has become almost as liberal as California or New York.  A new curriculum infiltrating Texas schools has re-written history to make patriotism look more like terrorism.  School kids are being taught that theBoston Tea Party was an act of terrorism, not patriotism.  They are also being taught that Allah is God Almighty.

Now, the same curriculum, produced by CSCOPE, is asking 6th graders to design a flag for a new communist country.  The lesson plan reads:

“Notice socialist/communist nations use symbolism on their flags representing various aspects of their economic system. Imagine a new socialist nation is creating a flag and you have been put in charge of creating that flag. Use symbolism to represent aspects of socialism/communism on your flag. What kind of symbolism/colors would you use?”

The creators of the curriculum could have asked the students to design a flag for a country that recently gained its freedom from communism, but they chose to go in the opposite direction.  Finally, some state legislators are growing concerned enough to hold a hearing in which they questioned the curriculum creators about their motives.  They are saying that the new curriculum promotes anti-American values and suppresses classroom flexibility.

During the hearings, they heard from a number of witnesses that described the CSCOPE curriculum as being dangerous, liberal and anti-Christian.  One algebra teacher became emotional during his testimony when he told the committee that he had resigned because he felt using the curriculum was ‘aiding and abetting a crime.’

State Sen. Larry Taylor stated the he saw the lesson plan on designing a communist flag as ‘very egregious as a Texan and an American.’  He went on to say that it sounds like the students are supposed to sympathize with the people in the other countries.

State Sen. Donna Campbell questioned the creators of CSCOPE about the rigidity of the curriculum.  She was concerned that it did not allow for any flexibility of the teachers.  The creators responded that it was designed to make sure that teachers adhered to the complicated state requirements.  Campbell was not satisfied with the response and cut them off saying that, ‘Our teachers don’t need to be scripted.’

The CSCOPE curriculum is currently being used in about 70% of the public schools in Texas, which means the majority of students are being indoctrinated to accept Allah as God, American patriots were terrorists and that communism isn’t all that bad.  Hopefully, there are enough lawmakers in the state that see the problems and concerns of this anti-American, anti-Christian curriculum and that they take action to remove it from Texas schools before we completely lose the generation of Texas conservatives.

Read more:




Texas Curriculum Teaching Allah is God Almighty

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

This is one more sign of  America‘s moral decline.

The is but one God All Mighty.

He is the God of Abraham,Jacob and Issac.

Not the psychotic figment of the pedophile Mohammed’s imagination. 


Several weeks ago I wrote about a new curriculum being used in Texas schools that defined the Boston Tea Party as a terrorist act and literally condemned the rebellious actions of the colonists.  The same curriculum goes even further to rewrite history and destroy America’s foundational Christian roots.

The curriculum is produced by an organization known as CSCOPE who is owned and operated by Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative (TESCCC).  According to their website:

“The collaborative’s goal is to provide a quality curriculum support system to Texas K-12 schools. TESCCC has developed CSCOPE, a comprehensive, customized, user-friendly curriculum support system. In addition to the curriculum, CSCOPE encompasses resources for the implementation, monitors the curriculum and establishes an accountability process to ensure a quality implementation.”

“The curriculum component of CSCOPE is based on best practice models from top researchers. Lessons are all aligned with the TEKS/TAKS and each lesson meets the highest standards of rigor and relevance.”

“As of September 25, 2012, there are 875 active CSCOPE districts. This equates to approximately 70% of the districts in Texas.”

So what else are 70% of the school districts in Texas teaching your kids?

To start with, the curriculum teaches that the Second Amendment only applies to state run militias and not private citizens.  In other words they are teaching that there is no constitutional right for Americans to bear or own firearms unless they are part of state operated militia like the National Guard.  Mind you that the US Supreme Court has ruled in several cases lately that the Second Amendment does apply to every American citizen.

The curriculum also has a section on Islam where it teaches students a variety of verses from the Quran including:

“Who Is Allah?”

“Allah is the Almighty God.”

“Allah alone is the Creator. He alone deserves our devout love and worship.”

The section on Islam also lists verses that malign other religions and then provides instructions on how to convert to Islam.

To no surprise, the geography section of the CSCOPE curriculum teaches the positive aspects of globalism.  One test contains the following question:

“Which of the following has been a benefit of globalization?”

“a) pandemics, b) increased standard of living, c) loss of local culture, and finally, d) widespread environmental impacts.”

The accepted answer is b) increased standard of living.

In virtually all subjects of the CSCOPE curriculum, students are taught a revisionist view of history in which America is the bad guy and that free enterprise and democracy are wrong.  Instead of being patriotic to America, we should embrace globalism and be happy as one with the rest of the world.

I could not find anything that taught about Christianity or Judaism or how to convert to either of them, but there an extensive section on Islam.

Texas is a big state with a lot of children and I find it very alarming to see what up to 70% of them are being taught.  This is why so many parents are losing their kids to today’s secular culture.  It’s also why more parents need to find a way to either homeschool their kids or put them in private school where they won’t be subject to the liberal progressive anti-American and anti-Christian brainwashing they are getting every day in the public classroom.

Read more:


Texas Schools Now Teaching Boston Tea Party Was Act Of Terrorism…

1 Comment

This is from Freedom Outpost.

The educational system is indoctrinating young skull full of mush.

If we ever plant to reclaim educational education.

We need to reclaim our educational system.

Does anyone remember the video that began to circulate where a FEMA representative told local police in Oklahoma that the founding fathers and Christians were terrorists? If you thought that was the end of such statements, let me awaken you to the reality that public schools are teaching something very similar to that in the U.S. occupied State of Texas. They are teaching students, contrary to their parents wishes, that the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism and that those who did it were terrorists.

Before we go further, let me state clearly that I fully understand the sentiments of those who engaged the Boston Tea Party. I understand their desire to make a statement. It wasn’t right for them to take what belonged to someone else and destroy it, but I did get the sentiment and would never call it terrorism. No one was killed. No one was threatened. It was a statement that they were not going to be taxed by England without being represented.

This December 16 will mark the 239th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. The protest has been historically recognized as the event that sparked the Revolutionary War. However, this is how it is being taught via the Texas public school system’s World History/ Social Studies lesson plan (Unit 12: Lesson: 07:

News report: New Act of Terrorism

A local militia, believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the property of private citizens today at our nation’s busiest port. Although no one was injured in the attack, a large quantity of merchandise, considered to be valuable to its owners and loathsome to the perpetrators, was destroyed. The terrorists, dressed in disguise and apparently intoxicated, were able to escape into the night with the help of local citizens who harbor these fugitives and conceal their identities from the authorities. It is believed that the terrorist attack was a response to the policies enacted by the occupying country’s government. Even stronger policies are anticipated by the local citizens.

In fact, much of the curriculum seems to suggest that anyone who opposes or does not agree with what government is doing is somehow labeled a “terrorist.”

After the above story is read, teachers are then instructed on how to manipulate the students thinking. From the lesson plan:

There can be no doubt that these lessons are geared to tying the historical Boston Tea Party with terrorism and that concept then tied to the current Tea Party movement and thus to terrorism.

The company producing the lessons is CSCOPE. So just who is CSCOPE? They are owned by Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative (TESCCC). According to CSCOPE’s website:

CSCOPE is the source for an all-in-one approach to a quality curriculum system. CSCOPE is a comprehensive, customizable, user-friendly curriculum management system built on the most current research-based practices in the field.

CSCOPE has several sample resources and samples that you can view here.

A reader of FreedomOutpost sent me information on the curriculum and also spoke with me via telephone. She informed me that many parents were denied access to the curriculum by teachers and superintendents. This is in direct violation of Texas State Law. From the Texas Constitution:

Sec. 26.006. ACCESS TO TEACHING MATERIALS. (a) A parent is entitled to:

(1) review all teaching materials, instructional materials, and other teaching aids used in the classroom of the parent’s child;

However, it doesn’t end there. CSCOPE also imposes a “gag order” on teachers using the site, which I have been informed they were made to sign a copy without legal counsel.

In addition to the above, note the counter cultural anti-Christian lesson offered by CSCOPE via the CSCOPE review website:

CSCOPE Lesson: Christianity is a Cult

In addition, they then provide false and misleading historical data pertaining to Islam, such as the following screenshot:

Also, the curriculum seems to be not only anti-Christian, but also pro-Islam as demonstrated in this Power Point presentation.

There is also Population Dynamics, along with Population Demography curriculum that is taught to the students. While population dynamics and even demography may be helpful to some, the question that should arise is, “Why is this being taught in public school?” The answer comes from a very presumptive source, the United Nations.

In their International Commission To consider Zero Population Resolution they address “High School Ambassadors” and cite the following:

As the world approaches a population of seven billion people, Secretary General Ban Kimoon would like you to participate on an international roundtable to discuss the issues associated with this growth. The outcome of this roundtable will be a report educating people of your age, around the world, about the impact of the current growth projections on specific countries throughout the world and possible measures that could lessen those impacts.
To be prepared for the roundtable, you will need to understand the basics of population dynamics and factors that impact populations. Specifically, you should focus on the following:

• Biotic and abiotic factors that limit population growth
• The relationship between carrying capacity and population growth
• Calculating birth and death rates as well as identifying exponential and logistical growth patterns

You will need to demonstrate your understanding of population dynamics, utilizing appropriate technology, and incorporate this in your final report to the UN Roundtable by applying it to a specific developed and developing country. Your report should include the following:

• Demographic data for each country including birth, death, and fertility rates
represented visually
• Description of the type of population growth being experienced and the key social,
biological, political, and economic factors impacting that growth
• A position whether to support or oppose the pending resolution that the world must
achieve zero population growth by the year 2060
o Support your position using trends and predictions based on your research.
• Alternative measures to limit impact of growth

My friends if you live in Texas you had better wake up and either stand up against the state run schools or get your children out of there. This not only applies in Texas, but in all states. Consider homeschooling your kids. They will gain the best knowledge of all things from you, not to mention you will have the greatest amount of time to input your values, principles and morals instead of having to counter what the statists are teaching your kids.

Read more:



Patrick Henry Speaks Of Freedom And Liberty.

Leave a comment


Please take time to read Patrick Henry‘s words.

What kind of Liberty do we want?


Following the Boston Tea Party, Dec. 16, 1773, in which American colonists dumped 342 containers of tea into the Boston harbor, the British Parliament enacted a series of Acts in response to the rebellion in Massachusetts.

In May of 1774, General Thomas Gage, commander of all British military forces in the colonies, arrived in Boston, followed by the arrival of four regiments of British troops.

The First Continental Congress met in the fall of 1774 in Philadelphia with 56 American delegates, representing every colony, except Georgia. On September 17th, the Congress declared its opposition to the repressive Acts of Parliament, saying they are “not to be obeyed,” and also promoted the formation of local militia units.

Thus economic and military tensions between the colonists and the British escalated. In February of 1775, a Provincial Congress was held in Massachusetts during which John Hancock and Joseph Warren began defensive preparations for a state of war. The British Parliament then declared Massachusetts to be in a state of rebellion.

On March 23rd, in Virginia, the largest colony in America, a meeting of the colony’s delegates was held in St. John’s church in Richmond. Resolutions were presented by Patrick Henry putting the colony of Virginia “into a posture of defense…embodying, arming, and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient for that purpose.” Before the vote was taken on his resolutions, Henry delivered the speech below, imploring the delegates to vote in favor.

He spoke without any notes in a voice that became louder and louder, climaxing with the now famous ending. Following his speech, the vote was taken in which his resolutions passed by a narrow margin, and thus Virginia joined in the American Revolution.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth — to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?

Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation — the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.

We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak — unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!” — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Patrick Henry – March 23, 1775


%d bloggers like this: