Greatest Hits: Liberty Deserves Better From Me


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Liberty Deserves Better From Me: John Carey made a rather strong point.

Note that this post was originally published in 1-9-13

On this day in 1776 Thomas Paine published his pamphlet “Common Sense.”  This 47-page pamphlet made the arguments in favor of American independence.  Mr. Paine’s use of plain language spoke to the common people of America. It was also the first published pamphlet that openly argued for independence.  The powerful words of Mr. Paine helped galvanize a movement that before Common Sense was published was a scattered grumbling at best.

Paine fundamentally changed the tenor of colonists’ argument with the crown when he wrote the following:  “Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America.  This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe.  Hither they have fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still.”


The power of words.  We must remember this when writing our articles.  The power of words can unite or divide.  They can turn a mob into a movement.  They can restore a republic.  In the next four years we’re going to face some serious challenges as a nation.  We going to see our constitution ignored.  We’re going to see more liberties stripped away from us.  And we’re going to see our beloved America begin to unravel.  The power of words can turn this around.  Think about the letter that former U.S. Marine Joshua Boston wrote to Senator Feinstein and the power of his words.

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Boston

H/T Daily News

The words in this letter went viral because it resonated with people.  It not only challenged her perceived authority on this matter, but it highlighted her arrogance.  It reminded people who we were as a people.  This is the power of words and how it can change the narrative.  This letter put Senator Feinstein on the defense and made her look smaller in the eyes of many.  Each day we write and publish articles that cover a wide variety of topics.  We do our best with each topic, but do our words really resonate with the people?  Are they powerful and factually sound?  I believe in the power of words.  I believe that each of us are using words each day to try to save the republic.  We must be make sure our efforts are meaningful and our words resonate with the people.  We must like Thomas Paine use the power of words to ignite a movement to restore the republic.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post:  Sentry Journal


Founding Fathers’ Quotes on the People’s Right to Bear Arms


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Just three days after the horrible shooting in Newtown Connecticut, progressive forces are in full “never let a crisis go to waste” mode to advance their anti-gun agenda.  They have allowed no time for mourning and are striking while the iron is hot.  It’s a selfish and shameful act that is driving the national debate towards gun control and the away from the root cause of our problem; the devaluing of human life.  I decided that the best people to help make the case for those of us who cherish America and our second amendment rights are our founding fathers.  Below are some quotes from the founders on the people’s right to bear arms.  Take a few minutes to read them.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.”
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot’s Debates, vol. 3 “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.”

“… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
Thomas Paine

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

“The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … “
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8


The federal government should not be injecting itself in this issue.  First off they have no constitutional authority to restrict gun ownership no matter what President Obama believes.  Secondly this is a states issue and should be addressed at the local level.  A cookie cutter approach will not work because of the uniqueness of each community across America.  My question is where was all the progressive outrage over Fast and Furious?  Something to think about.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!  .

Original Post:  The Sentry Journal


Liberty deserves better from me


As a conservative I’m fighting each day to restore the constitutional republic our founding fathers gave us.  My weapon in this fight is the words that I use in the articles I write.  After all this an ideological war, one that pits two very different views about the role government should play in our lives.  It’s a topic that has been debated since the founding of our great nation.  Great minds like James Madison and Patrick Henry had two very different views on the role government should play in our lives and they matched wits against each other during the Virginia ratifying convention in 1788.  Both men were Patriots and both men were concerned with securing the rights of the individual.  They just had different ideas on the best method to use to secure those rights.

James Madison believed government should play a stronger role in our lives and therefore pressed for the ratification of the constitution.  He believed that without the constitution the union would eventually unravel and come apart.  He was a Federalist and one of the chief architects of the constitution.  Patrick Henry on the other hand believed the constitution was too vague and that there would come a time when men who were not the same caliber in terms of the character of the founders would twist and distort the constitution to expand their power at the expense of liberty.  Mr. Henry believed the states were sovereign entities that were more than capable in securing the rights of the people and that an all-powerful central government was not needed.  Two opposing views desiring to achieve the same goal; the securing of individual rights.  Mr. Henry was an anti-Federalist.  Some of the best arguments for both sides of the debate occurred between these two men during the Virginia ratifying convention.  You can read more about the debate here.

Even though both men philosophically opposed each other they also had respect for one another.  They were cordial to each other and did not call each other names because they disagreed.  Each man presented their arguments in support or opposition to the constitution to the Virginia Assembly.  For both men the cause for liberty was greater than themselves so they chose their words carefully when they spoke.

The other day I wrote an article Why I didn’t watch President Obama’s acceptance speech and in that article I used the term Kool-Aid drinkers.  When my wife read the article she said she liked everything about it except when I called Obama supporters Kool-Aid drinkers.  She asked how do you expect to win over the hearts and minds of people when you resort to the same tactics the left uses.  She said you’re smarter and better than that honey.  At the time I really didn’t take her words to heart.  I didn’t think calling Obama supporters Kool-Aid drinkers was that big of a deal.  That changed when my wife shared the article on her facebook page and one of her friends responded with the following:

The kool-aid drinkers and the ignorant….nice one! I can respect the fact that people have different political views than mine, I have no respect for the people who resort to degrading and belittling the people who don’t agree with them!! While it is quite despicable, it’s eye-opening at the same time…this country still has a long way to go!!!

My first reaction was who does this person think she is, lecturing me about civility and name calling.  After all the left labels me and calls me racist, Nazi, and extremist so why not push back.  And I said as much in my response.

I respect your opinion and this by no means is a knock against you personally. In regards to trying to weed out name calling and intolerance you need to look no further than the people who claim to be so tolerant of all…the left. People on the left who claim to be so tolerant are actually intolerant of my beliefs just because I refuse to blindly submit to an ideology that has failed over and over again throughout history. They’re the ones calling me a racist, a Nazi, an extremist because I believe in the individual and liberty and reject collectivism. They’re the ones calling me extreme because I believe we should restore the law of the land that is our constitution. I really don’t need to be lectured by people who are intolerant of me because of my beliefs and who have a great deal of contempt for our founding principles that promote individual liberties. You’re right we have a long way to go, and perhaps I could have taken the high road and dropped the name calling, but I felt I needed to push back with the same tactics used against me from the left.

After I posted my response my wife looked at me and said, “You’re missing the point.”  I responded by telling her that I’m not going to be ridiculed for what I believe and I’m certainly not going to stand for being lectured by someone who throws their lot in with the people who label me.  She smiled and said, “Babe you already have the winning argument, how is name calling going to add value to it.”  The more I thought about it the more I began to understand what she was saying.  The case for liberty is a winning argument no matter what political party you claim.  And each day we fight, we fight for the liberty we once had as a people.  This cause for liberty is bigger than us and it deserves better than petty name calling or the labeling of people.  We have a responsibility to frame it in the correct context to advance it for all Americans.  Resorting to name calling tactics takes away from the message we’re trying to convey and in this case actually became a barrier against effective communication.

Ronald Reagan was a rock solid conservative who embarked on a journey to advance the cause of liberty in America.  He didn’t advance it by labeling or calling his opponents names.  He advanced it by making the case for liberty through his words and actions and because of this he smashed down the barriers political parties had erected.  A large number of Democrats received his message and crossed over the political divide to support his candidacy in 1980 and his reelection in 1984.  They didn’t cross over because he was a great speaker or because of name recognition.  They crossed over because he made the case for liberty and economic freedom.  So from this point forward I will choose my words carefully.  I will no longer use labels like Kool-Aid drinkers or Obamabots.  I will advance the cause of liberty by making the argument that individual liberty is last best hope for America and I will take this charge seriously.

We can disagree with the left on the role government should play in our lives.  But we’re going to lose this ideological war if we can’t sell the case for liberty.  And when we stoop to their level and name call we shut down the lines of communication and greatly reduce the chance for liberty to be advanced.  The cause for liberty deserves better from me.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post:  The Sentry Journal


We Know About the Federalist Papers. What About the Anti-Federalist Papers?


Constitutional scholars, federal justices, and lawyers who try cases in federal courts and the Supreme Court often go to the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist papers and other historic documents to get to the original intent of our constitution. Although my education on American history was woefully lacking, I was, at least, aware the something called the Federalist Papers existed. It was decades later when I actually read any of the Federalist Papers and then only about ten of the eighty-five or more papers. It was only recently that I decided it might be educational to find out what those opposed to the ratification of our constitution had to say. I have now read about ten of Anti-Federalist Papers.

The Articles of Confederation signed in 1781 is considered our first constitution. Although written by essentially the same group of Founders, their first attempt at forming a federal government for the United States was a total disaster. The thirteen states were so intent on maintaining their power and sovereignty that they created a Federal government that was toothless. Article II stated:


Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no Executive branch, there was no judicial branch, there was no one designated as head of state to negotiate treaties or commerce with other nations,there was no taxing authority, and the federal government had no control over interstate commerce or in the coinage of a national currency and each state was, therefore, setting tariffs to protect their own industries and creating their own currencies. The Federal government was a joke and that was how it was perceived by other nations.

There were during the years after the ratification of the Articles of Confederation a few attempts to fix parts of it; but they went nowhere. Finally in May of 1787 twelve states, Rhode Island was the exception, sent delegates to Philadelphia to amend the Articles of Confederation such that the federal government could truly function. However, after about four weeks, the majority of the delegates voted to throw out the Articles of Confederation and start over on a new constitution. Some delegate were very unhappy over this turn of events and the New York delegates walked out temporarily.

Working behind closed doors the delegates worked and debated in secrecy until the final document of seven articles on four pages was completed on September 17, 1787. Copies printed so as each state could then hold ratifying conventions and that is when the “fun” began. The destiny of our constitution was fought until March 4, 1989.  Supporters of ratification published papers explaining and defending the new constitution. All of these 85 papers were signed Plubius. But, consensus today atributes 52 to Alexander Hamilton, 28 to James Madison, and five to John Jay. Collectively they have become known as the Federalist Papers. Those that opposed ratification of the constitution as it was written also published their arguments against ratification. Most were written under pseudonyms, such as, Centinel and Brutus and Federal Farmer and Cato. Some, however were signed with the authors proper name. These letters became collectively known as the Anti-Federalist Papers.

In the course of ny research for this post, I found several references to the  Anti-Federalst as the “old patriots” (those that had been loyal to the crown and did not support the Revolution) and the Federalist were refered to as the “new patriots who had supported the Revolution. I think that is an over statement because as you will see Patrick Henry was an Anti-Federalist and argued against ratification of the constitution as written.

If you click on the link above to the Anti-Federalist Papers, you will find an index to 85 papers. Scroll through it and look at the titles and you will the gamut of concerns the Anti-Federalist had.

The fear that an American aristocracy would take over our new government was common to many of the Anti-Federalist. Massachusetts, for example, was appalled that Senators would be elected to serve six-year terms and could possibly serve for a life time. The Federalist argued that they had addressed that concern because Senators were to be appointed by the state legislature and they could remove an appointee at will. Sadly, the states lost that power with the 17th Amendment in 1013.

Patrick Henry gave a total of 24 speeches before the Virginia ratification convention.  If you have time, you may want to read Henry’s Speech No. 1. Patrick Henry was very much a states rights man. He objected to the words “We the People” and would have prefered “We the States”.

I was impressed that in several of the A-F papers I read the authors were concerned about the “Commerce Clause” and thee “General Welfare Clause” would be used to expand the powers of the federal government. The Federalist, of course, were quick to point to the “Enumerated Powers” as the restraint against the federal government.We all know how that worked out, don’t we?. I doubt we could find a conservative today that doesn’t wish the founders had been more specific with those two clauses.

There was another concern that came up often in the papers I read. It was a reference to the well known political philosopher Montesquieu who believed that republics could only function in relatively small geographical areas with relatively small populations. The reason being that otherwise the connection between the people and their representatives would be lost. The Federalist argued that this had been addressed through the proportional representation in the House of Representatives. The constitution allowed that the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand. Congress  regularly increased the size of the House to account for population growth until it fixed the number of voting House members at 435 in 1911. Today with a population of 330 million a House member represents on average about 759,000 people. Maybe the Anti-Federalist had a point.

In the end the Anti-Federalist lost, which explains why so few Americans are even aware that there were arguments against ratifying the constitution as it was written. But, even my cursory review of their concerns makes me think that they were quite prescient.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire


Angry Right-Wing Rhetoric Leads to Violence!


Angry white men, bitter clingers, shoot at King George’s Troops Dateline April 19, 1775.  Ye Olde New York Times.

We here at Ye Olde New York Times have just received dispatches telling of an actual physical outbreak of violence between King George’s troops and angry militia members at Lexington and Concord in the colony of Massachusetts Bay.

We have long feared this moment and place the blame squarely where it belongs:  With the militia of the several colonies.

The angry, anti-government, unchristian rhetoric promulgated by those in the so-called opposition could only lead to further violence.  We here at Ye Old New York Times denounce the Adams’ of Massachusetts Bay and Patrick Henry of Virginia.

We ponder their words and actions and denounce them as traitors to His Most Liberal and Enlightened King George III.  We further ask our readers what sort of people are these in the so-called opposition?  We find that they are small, bitter men, clinging to their guns.

Yes, they cling to their so-called right to bear arms.

For what was the primary reason that the King’s troops marched out of Boston towards Concord?  They had orders to find and destroy guns stored by the Concord Militia.

We ask our readers why an enlightened and free people, protected by the most Liberal and humane government in Europe need to own guns?   There can be only one reason:  Violence!

We at Ye Olde New York Times ask His Majesty King George to respond to this crisis in an energetic fashion.  We ask him to curtail, if not outright prohibit, the private ownership of guns.  We also ask his Majesty to outlaw the militia of the several colonies.

For rights are not absolute. If the so-called right of free assembly and the so-called right to bear arms lead to violence they must be eliminated.  Our government cannot be allowed to become destabilized.  We further add that anything that curtails the power of the State is immoral.

Patrick Henry has famously stated, “Give me liberty or give me death!”

Now that literal and not just figurative death has visited these shores we pray that the Angel of Death visit Mr. Henry and give him what he so desperately deserves!  We also pray that peace be restored to the King’s Dominions.

The Editorial Board of Ye Olde New York Times

Subscribe Ye now and get 20 articles a month for free!

Original Post:  Manhattan Infidel


Patrick Henry’s Finest Hour: Give me Liberty or give me death


There comes a time in all of our lives when we must take a stand; when riding the fence just doesn’t get it done.   It was 236 years ago this past Wednesday when a passionate Virginia lawyer stood before 120 delegates at St John’s Church in Virginia and took a stand against tyranny.  This lawyer was Patrick Henry and if he was alive today the left and even some on the right would label him as an extremist.  He was indeed radical when it came to his love for liberty and freedom.  I for one believe this kind of passion should be honored and never forgotten.

It was the fourth day of the Virginia convention on Thursday on March 23rd 1775 when Patrick Henry facing a skeptical audience stood up to make the case for freedom over tyranny.  He had enough of the cowering down to King George and felt it was time to stand up for liberty.  It was time for the colonists to push back.  No more scraps, no more being treated as children; it was time for a change.  Every time I read his words I’m hopeful because I know that there was a time when such great men lived and that time can be again.  So to honor Mr. Henry I post his speech every year on the anniversary of it.  Please take the time to read it.  Hopefully it will inspire you as much as it has inspired me over the years.

March 23, 1775

Henry presented a proposal to organize a volunteer company of cavalry or infantry in every Virginia county. By custom, Henry addressed himself to the Convention’s president, Peyton Randolph of Williamsburg.

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 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 questing 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 toward 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 those 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 motive 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 upon 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. 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 those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The 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!

Source: The University of Oklahoma College of Law

After the speech those who originally favored a more conciliatory approach in regards to mother England were moved by his words and when a vote came to the floor the majority voted to support his resolutions.  Words do matter.

It was Thomas Jefferson who described Patrick Henry as the man who “set the ball of Revolution rolling” in Virginia.

Powerful stuff folks.

Liberty forever, freedom for all.

Original Post: The Sentry Journal