QUIZ: How Well Do You Know Documents, Publications, Speeches, and Court Opinions?

For my TEA Party meeting last night, I put together a QUIZ for members to work on at their seats to see how well they are able to identify and recognize our country’s founding and otherwise critical defining documents. The QUIZ contains excerpts from 30 documents or speeches.

I put together this particular QUIZ for a reason.

It is rare to find anyone these days who has read or even understands some of the crucial documents on which our country was founded. It is even rarer for our children to be taught in school about them and their significance. No one teaches the genealogy of our Constitution or our Bill of Rights, or even has the intellectual integrity to point out the meaning and intent of its provisions and its guarantees. But each of our founding documents and each of the historical documents that contributes to their drafting and meaning is significant. They all are very significant. Our early documents define our country, they convinced our early countrymen to be mindful of their liberties and to be protective and defensive of them. They convinced them that in order to preserve those rights and to safeguard them here in America, they would need to separate from Great Britain and to fight for their right to be independent. And we are so glad they did.

Today we are vilified for quoting our Founding documents, for glorifying our Founding Fathers, for daring to remind Americans what our Constitution means and what government is SUPPOSED to be doing. In fact, as soon as Obama took office, he had his Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, draft new guidance for the Department. And she did; it was titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” She issued it in April 2009, just 2 months after Obama took the oath of office. In this “guidance,” which she sent to all law enforcement offices across the nation, the people most likely to cause problems (that is, to become radicalized) were not Islamic fundamentalists or other militant Muslims, but rather, were conservatives such as veterans (who cling to their guns), such as those who are religious (who cling to their religion), such as those in Tea Party groups (who cling to the Founding Fathers), such as those who are in Tenth Amendment groups and who are staunch supporters of the Second Amendment. You can see the general trend. According to Obama and Napolitano, police should be keeping their eyes on these types of individuals…… on people like us.

So, what I’m saying is that for 8 years, it was actually fairly dangerous to be in a Tea Party group, to be advocating for the Second Amendment, to be standing up for the Constitution, and to be quoting our Founding Fathers.

But if our republic is to survive, we must stand up for the Constitution (AS WRITTEN) and we must continue to quote and to teach others about what our Founding Fathers wrote, spoke, and advocated for.

We are going through a tough time in our country now – watching while a diseased political party, the Democratic Party, tries to dismantle and discredit a president and an administration that was selected and supported by a majority of the people. They are attempting the unthinkable – a political coup d’etat. It won’t work, of course, but Democratic leaders have the absolute audacity to aggressively work against the majority of the American people and to work against the Constitutional system in place that has legally and rightfully given rise to the election of Donald J. Trump. I can think of nothing more UN-AMERICAN… more TREASONOUS than that.

One thing that troubles me so greatly is how Rep. Adam Schifty-Schiff is misrepresenting the phone conversation between Trump and the Ukraine president Zelensky and how the Democratic-controlled House Intelligence Committee (I call it the House sub-Intelligence Committee) is emphasizing how certain individuals took the conversation to mean that Trump was engaging in quid-pro-quo coercion with Zelensky in order to get information on Hunter Biden. The transcript shows otherwise. President Trump, the party to the conversation, says there was no quid-pro-quo coercion and no intent to do so. In such instances, it is the SUBJECTIVE intent that rules and not what OTHER PEOPLE think the president meant in his conservation. If we don’t like someone, we can always find a way to skew their words and re-characterize what they said or did.

Look at the HYPOCRISY……   When Obama was president, he came out and personally told the American people that he was absolutely sure that Hillary Clinton had no intent to break any federal laws by setting up and using a private server in her home. It may have been an oversight, but it was not reckless. By saying this, he told the American people that she lacked the requisite intent to be guilty of breaking the Espionage Act and other federal laws about communicating using anything other than a government server.

Obama similarly did his best to publicly exonerate Lois Lerner, his head of the IRS, for her blatant and unconscionable mis-deeds. Remember how Lois Lerner targeted applications by TEA Party groups and other Liberty and Constitution groups and denied them tax-exempt status? I know TEA Party groups and TEA Party leaders who were affected by Lerner and who were harassed by her. Yet Obama defended her actions again and again. In the end, her targeting was so pervasive and so clearly discriminatory that an Independent Auditor found that she absolutely abused the IRS in order to silence TEA Party groups for the 2012 election. Lerner was allowed not to testify about what she did, she was allowed to retire and to keep her pension and also, to receive a handsome bonus.

It must be nice to have the government covering your back and to be rewarded for breaking the law.

Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch lied repeatedly about the secret meeting and conversation she had with Bill Clinton in a plane on the tarmac the day before she was to announce whether charges would be filed against his wife. She said they talked (for 45 min) about yoga and the grandkids. No one believed her. But the government did. It backed her story. I call that COLLUSION. I call that OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

And head of the FBI… lying, leaking James Comey came out and publicly did the very same thing that Obama did. He told the American people that Hillary Clinton lacked the requisite mindset to break any federal laws by using a private server. He did it the same way that Obama did it – by misrepresenting the primary statute (substituting different language for the actual language). Then he announced that the Department of Justice would not bring an indictment against her. This was a total breach of protocol because the FBI only addresses the evidence collected but leaves the ultimate decision to the Attorney General. Comey relieved Loretta Lynch of making the ultimate decision (and hence being responsible for it).

Yet the Democrats NOW are bending 180 degrees in the opposite direction…. There is nothing nefarious or criminal to accuse Trump of, and so instead, they are twisting his words, bringing in people to malign him, and going down the Impeachment path — something that arguably should have been done to Obama.

Now more than ever, we need to re-connect to our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our Founding documents, our Founding Fathers, our founding era, and other documents, rulings, speeches, etc that have had a profound effect on our country and have defined what we stand for. We need to quote from these documents. We need to teach them to our children. We need to use their language.

Back in our founding era, people were essentially good, God-fearing people. They weren’t criminals, drug-dealers, drug addicts, welfare addicts, illegals, socialists, terrorists, domestic terrorists, mental defectives, lazy morons…….   They knew right from wrong, they valued hard work, they had a work ethic (you don’t work, you don’t eat), they were productive. That is not what we have in America today. Half of Americans are hard working and productive, but we all know that too many are not. They are taking from those who have taken the initiative to become educated, who have ambition to work, and those who are making decent money. In other words, they are almost parasitic. Like any other true parasite, they attach to a healthy host and in the process make it less healthy. That defines our country today. Trump is trying to create so many jobs that there can be no excuse for dependency and for living and existing on welfare.

When our Founders wrote our founding documents, when they spoke their impassioned words in support of Liberty, they were understood to be acting in good faith, with proper ethics, as a patriot, concerned for the continued health and integrity of our country, concerned for the continued security of individual liberty, and advocating for good over evil, right over wrong. In interpreting their words and themes, we always understood that they were to be read in such light. Today, our diseased Democrats read the Constitution…..

OH WAIT….. They DON’T READ the Constitution. It couldn’t be more obvious. And then we have the brilliant Nancy Pelosi who laughs at reporters and laughs at the American people who question if she has consulted the Constitution before moving forward with bills and obstructionist policies. She doesn’t have time for that.

Today, our diseased Democrats read statutes, read policies, interpret laws and the like in a light that totally contradicts how they were written. Instead of reading the Declaration as a liberty document, they condemn it as the product of a man who owned slaves. Instead of reading the Constitution as a liberty document, they condemn it as a document for white men, designed to enshrine slavery. Instead of reading Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as protecting the civil rights of certain clearly-defined groups from discrimination in the workplace, they want it to protect all groups that are outside the traditional norm. “Banning discrimination in the workplace on account of sex” was intended to protect just the rights of women. LBGT groups want the courts to expand the meaning to include gays and lesbians. Transgenders want the courts to expand the meaning to include individuals who are born one way (and still look essentially that way) but who “identify” as something different. They want Bob, who looks like Bob, and who has Bob’s body parts, but who now wants to dress up as Betty, to be absolutely protected in the workplace. The SCOPE change of Title VII is NOT the role of the courts. The Legislature wrote it and if they want to include special protections for other groups – then it must be the legislature to amend its language. And it must be the members of Congress who are willing to take their chances with their constituency at election time. These cases were heard last month by the Supreme Court, by the way. They heard them on the second day of the 2020 Supreme Court session.

Anyway, I hope this QUIZ, which I have copied and included below, will help us all to become educated and to help educate others, such as family members and friends. And I hope we will go back to the tradition of reading and understanding what our Constitution means and what our country actually stands. I hope we will once again realize that the Constitution is OUR document – the People’s document. The Declaration articulated the inalienable right of a people to form a government suitable to secure their inalienable and essential liberty and civil rights and the equal right to alter or abolish that government when it fails to serve them effectively. A constitution is a permanent manifestation of the powers that the People willingly delegate to their government as well as the limitations they impose on it. A constitution establishes the necessary boundaries to government in order that People can live their lives exercising their God-given liberties. I hope we will return to the view that the United States is special place on Earth where individual freedom and liberty are protected and are secured from the advances and intentions of government. And finally, I hope that we realize once again that our Constitution was written to govern a population of mostly religious and moral people. As John Adams once warned: “It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

If you have time, please take the QUIZ and see what you know:

TEA PARTY QUIZ: NAME THE DOCUMENT

1). “….. to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

2). “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

3). “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

4). “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.”

5). Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand

Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!

Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land

Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

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

7). “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

8). (12) No ‘scutage’ or ‘aid’ (ie, tax) may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable ‘aid’ may be levied…

(13) The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs…….

(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”

9). “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…. “

10). “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

11). “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

12). “THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.”

13). “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. “

14). “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

15). “Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”

16). “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?”

17). “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”

18). “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

19). “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

20). “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State.’   …. The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here.

21). “.. For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

22). “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

23). “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

24). “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

25). “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

26). “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! 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!”

27). “Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessing — give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else! But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an old—fashioned fellow.”

28). “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

29). “Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like 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? 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. What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? 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.”

30). The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

 

THE ANSWERS:

1). The Declaration of Independence (second paragraph)

2). The Fourteenth Amendment (section 1). The Fourteenth Amendment is the provision of the Constitution under which most of our law suits are filed. It is the provision that addresses civil rights, equal protection, due process, etc. at the “state” level. If the Supreme Court ever agrees to take up a case addressing “birthright citizenship” (of illegals), it will have to interpret the first part of this section which talks about “citizenship.”

3). The Second Amendment

4). Federalist Papers No. 45 (authored by James Madison) – This essay explains the scope of the Tenth Amendment. Notice that the rights of the states are “numerous and indefinite” while those of the federal government were intended to be “few and defined.” That hardly seems the case today. But this is a very important essay; extremely important to explain the meaning and scope of the Constitution, and especially the doctrine of dual sovereignty. The Supreme Court should be using this essay in its analyses and should be citing to it in its rulings.

5). The National Anthem

6). First Amendment (Notice there is no phrase “Wall of Separation” included in this amendment to define the boundaries of religious freedom).

7). Eighth Amendment

8). The Magna Carta, signed in 1215 between King John and the English barons. I have included three sections: (12) This articulates the general rule that no taxes should be levied on persons unless they have representation in the government body that has the authority to pass such taxes (“No Taxation Without Representation!”). (13) This appears to be the early roots to our Ninth Amendment. (39) This is the early roots to the doctrine of DUE PROCESS. The Magna Carta goes on to state the following: “The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter…. Should such a thing be procured [which causes any of these concessions or liberties, or any part of them, to be revoked or diminished, it shall be duty of the barons to declare such null and void and we will at no time make use of it (ie, it will be unenforceable).” This provision articulates the doctrine of NULLIFICATION.

9). The Declaration of Independence (opening paragraph)

10). The Tenth Amendment

11). The Declaration of Independence (second paragraph)

12). “The Crisis” by Thomas Paine. Many are convinced that if it weren’t for the publications by Thomas Paine and the fiery speeches by Patrick Henry, the colonists may never have been motivated or inspired to fight for their independence. This particular passage from “The Crisis” has special meaning and significance. The colonists who enlisted to fight in the Revolutionary War were faced with dire circumstances – they were not receiving any compensation, their clothes were ragged and their shoes/boots were inadequate to protect them from the cold northern winters. How was General George Washington able to convince them to “hang in there” and continue to fight for the cause? He would gather his men around fires, pray with them, and read to them this passage from “The Crisis.” He felt it was the most powerful explanation for the reason to fight for independence. It was powerful enough, indeed, to keep the men loyal to the cause. Hearing the words written by Thomas Paine and being read by General Washington, they genuinely believed that their cause was right and just.

13). Ninth Amendment

14). The Declaration of Independence (final sentence of the second paragraph)

15). The Federalist Papers No. 78 (written by Alexander Hamilton). This is another very important essay yet one that the Supreme Court has conveniently chosen to ignore. Look what Hamilton writes about the judicial branch: “The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”   In other words, Hamilton is saying that the judicial branch is the least powerful of the three branches and has, at its only authority, the power to issue “opinions” to the other branches. The other branches have the discretion to either abide by those opinions or to ignore them and rely on an interpretation that they find more intellectually reliable.

16). From the famous speech (“Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!”) given by Patrick Henry to the House of Burgesses (Virginia Convention) at the old St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia on March 23, 1775. Patrick Henry delivered this speech less than a month before the beginning of the Revolutionary War. This speech and the reason he gave it are extremely important in explaining why the colonies decided to declare their independence and to fight to secure it.

Patrick Henry had heard of the Intolerable Acts imposed on the colonists in Boston and in Massachusetts in general. He heard that the colonial legislature had been abolished and that British General Gage was installed as the Royal Governor and imposed martial law. He understood that what was happening in Boston would not be confined to Boston and that British forces would be stationed eventually in all the colonies to keep them subjugated and prevent them from rebelling against the Crown. He knew that British forces were not being sent to the colonies for their protection but rather to enforce British colonial rule. And so, on that night in March, he introduced several resolutions essentially calling on Virginia to prepare for war, or at least, to prepare to counter the British forces. He wanted each county in Virginia to call up a militia and to have its men to be prepared and trained. The speech he delivered was in support of those resolutions. Read the words of the entire speech and it will all make sense….. “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?” He explains in the previous paragraph how the colonists have done everything possible to have a dialogue with the King and have implored him to intercede on their behalf with Parliament in order that their rights as Englishmen be respected, but to no avail. He ends with the words “The war is actually begun …. Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

And sure enough, the war came. On the night of April 18, 1775, hundreds of British troops marched from Boston to nearby Concord in order to seize a colonial arms cache. This is the story of Paul Revere and others who set out to alert the townsfolk that “The British are Coming!” In the early morning hours of April 19, approximately 700 redcoats arrived in Lexington and came upon 77 militiamen gathered on the town green. A shot rang out (“The shot heard round the world”) and the first shots of the American Revolution were fired.

The war came NOT because of the taxes imposed on the colonies, not because of the protests “No Taxation Without Representation,” but rather because the King of England once again (and in violation of the English Bill of Rights) was confiscating the firearms of its subjects. The colonists fought back because having their guns and ammunition confiscated was the ultimate act of a tyrant, one intent on subjugation and domination.

17). The English Bill of Rights of 1689. After a long history of abuses against the subjects of Great Britain (including the illegal confiscation of arms from political opponents, the illegal imprisonment of political opponents, the illegal confiscation of property, etc), the DUTY to keep and bear arms (under the various Militia laws) officially became recognized as a RIGHT to keep and bear arms for self-defense and self-protection.

18). Fourth Amendment (privacy)

19). Third Amendment

20). From the Supreme Court opinion in Everson v. Board of Education (1943), written by Justice Hugo Black, a former member of the KKK.

21). The Declaration of Independence (last sentence of the last paragraph)

22). Sixth Amendment

23). The Federalist Papers No. 78 (written by Alexander Hamilton).

24). The Preamble to the Bill of Rights. The words and sentiments of this Preamble cannot be overstated. Read its words. Essentially what it is saying is that the US Constitution, by its very language and provisions creates a federal government (a common government) that is limited to specific objects. The government was intentionally given limited powers in order that the States could exist in their independent form, exercising their independent sovereign powers, but yet being regulated to the point that they can co-exist without any discrimination or preferential treatment. HOWEVER, should that government forget this, the first ten amendments have been further added by the States in order to REMIND and REINFORCE its limited nature and to ASSERT in clear terms that as to the objects addressed in the amendments, the federal government will not legislate in any way to burden, violate, or deny said rights.

25). Fifth Amendment

26). Speech (“Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!”) given by Patrick Henry

27). From the speech given on the floor of Virginia’s ratifying convention in 1788 by an aging Patrick Henry. Henry was an Anti-Federalist who believed the US Constitution signed in Philadelphia on Sept. 17, 1787 would tend to concentrate too much power in the federal government, at the expense of state sovereignty and ultimately at the expense of the very liberty that they had just fought a revolution over. Henry also criticized the Constitution for not containing a Bill of Rights. He promised that he would do everything in his power to convince the VA Ratifying Convention not to ratify/ adopt it.

28). Seventh Amendment

29). Speech (“Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!”) given by Patrick Henry

30). The Gettysburg Address