Patrick Henry ~ American Patriot

The Center For Vision & Values

Grove City, PA --(Ammoland.com)- Among America’s amazing pantheon of founders, Patrick Henry stands out for his stirring speeches and fervent commitment to liberty, virtue, and small government.

The Virginia planter, lawyer, and politician strongly denounced Great Britain’s political and economic control of the American colonies and played a leading role in the movement for independence.

More controversially, Henry’s love of liberty, coupled with his support for limited government and states’ rights, led him to oppose ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Henry’s actions were inspired by both his devout Christian faith and the civic spirit of the ancient Romans and Greeks.

Although 10 previous biographies of Henry have been penned, Thomas S. Kidd’s “Patrick Henry: First Among Patriots” offers a fresh and compelling portrait of one of our nation’s more renowned but seemingly enigmatic founders. Dispelling many misconceptions, Kidd carefully analyzes the Virginian’s core convictions and contradictions. Kidd also illuminates the key ideological struggles of the turbulent revolutionary era involving the battle for independence, the debate over religious disestablishment, the creation of the United States, and the practice of slavery.

Most Americans associate Henry primarily with his electrifying speech at St. John’s Church in Richmond in 1775.

Opposing those who called for reconciliation with England, Henry thundered: “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!”

However, Henry’s fiery rhetoric was only one of his many contributions to American independence and development.

Few other founders were as revered during their lifetimes as Henry. Tremendously popular in his home state, he served six terms as governor and represented Virginia at the state convention to consider ratification of the Constitution. Honored as “an exemplar of virtue” and a senior statesman, Henry declined George Washington’s offers to serve as a senator from Virginia (to replace James Monroe, who had become an envoy), ambassador to Spain, secretary of state, and chief justice of the Supreme Court. Because of his family responsibilities, financial struggles, and health problems, Henry also resisted Federalists’ requests that he run for president in 1796.

Despite Henry’s constant exhortations on civic virtue and his generally laudable personal morality, like other founders, his ethical conduct was far from spotless. After the Revolution, Henry urged Americans to repudiate their debts to the British. As a lawyer, he frequently defended clients whose cases were ethically questionable. As a government official, Henry sometimes supported legislation that aided his extensive land speculation in the West. More grievously, despite his numerous denunciations of the evils of slavery, Henry, like many other founders, continued to own slaves (67 at his death) and did not free them either during his lifetime or in his will.

I have two minor disagreements with Kidd. The first is the subtitle of his book. Numerous founders are contenders for the title, “First Among Patriots,” and arguably Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, among others, trump Henry. A better subtitle might be “First Among Orators.” Kidd convincingly argues that no other patriot stirred his listeners to action more than Henry or enjoyed a greater reputation as a compelling debater.

Jefferson, for example, called Henry the “greatest orator that ever lived.”

Second, Kidd contends that no one deserves more credit for the colonies’ revolt against England than Henry. In my judgment, the contributions of Samuel Adams exceeded Henry’s. The man from Massachusetts did more than the Virginian to publicize colonists’ grievances, defend their rights, and mobilize them to protest English policies. Interestingly, these two champions of American independence both served as governors of their respective states, were deeply committed Christians, constantly warned that the new republic could succeed only if its citizens were virtuous, and spent much of their adult lives trying to avoid or escape debt.

Not surprisingly, many contemporary Christian conservatives see Henry as a hero. Henry regretted late in life that he had not attended church frequently or sufficiently identified himself as an orthodox Christian. However, the Virginian’s strong faith is evident in his speeches, letters to his daughter Betsey, attacks on deism and atheism, and frequent contention that the republic could flourish only if its commitment to historic Christianity prompted citizens to act virtuously. Along with Samuel Adams, John Hancock, John Jay, Benjamin Rush, Roger Sherman, Elias Boudinot, and a handful of other founders, Henry is often used to support the dubious contention that the United States was founded as a distinctly Christian nation. Moreover, today’s conservatives highly prize the ideals for which Henry stood as he supported American independence and opposed ratification of the Constitution: “liberty, religion, a moral society, and local politics.”

Anyone wanting to better understand the many significant contributions of Patrick Henry to American history should read Kidd’s masterful biography.

- Dr. Gary Scott Smith chairs the history department at Grove City College and is a fellow for faith and the presidency with The Center for Vision & Values. He is the author of “Faith and the Presidency From George Washington to George W. Bush” (Oxford University Press, 2009) and the newly released “Heaven in the American Imagination” (Oxford University Press, 2011).

AmmoLand Gun News

Washington DC - -(Ammoland.com)- Thanks to the Tea Party Movement, interest in the Founding Fathers remains at an all-time high — which poses a real problem for those on the Left desiring to undermine the nation and the principles it was founded upon.

Enter the postmodern historians in whose hands the Founding Fathers have been “cut down to size.”

Reframing the Framers Moral men who fought for a Republic built upon law and liberty have been transformed and presented as amoral — or even immoral — men dominated by their personal passions, in much the same way reckless men of the late 20th and earliest portions of the 21st century have proven to be.

In short, postmodern historians have revised these men of history to make them appear more “open- minded” toward, and approving of, everything from homosexual behavior to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to the pursuit of same-sex marriage.

What this has led to is an onslaught of blog posts, articles and books that suggest the most ridiculous things about the Founders.

One recent blog post titled “George Washington: Gay-Friendly Father of Our Country” actually claimed that Alexander Hamilton was “gay” and that George Washington was “gay friendly.”

Concerning Hamilton, the post claims, “When Hamilton was a young soldier … he was engaged in relationships with other men, as love letters he sent during the Revolutionary War prove.” It then claims Washington brought Hamilton to Valley Forge and provided him “a cabin to share with his then-lover, John Laurens, to whom Hamilton had written passionate love letters, which are still extant.”

The scholarship here is too poor even to be called rudimentary. Claims of this magnitude must be sourced with primary documents, and the collections holding the supposed documents must be cited so the reader can verify every detail. Lacking such substantiation, it’s little wonder that the author of this blog not only claims that Hamilton practiced homosexual behavior, but also that Hamilton was, at one time, president of the United States.

Of course, Hamilton was not president, and he never could have been because he was born in the West Indies of non-American parents: His father was James Hamilton, a Scotsman, and his mother was Rachel Fawcett Lavien, the daughter of a French physician.

Moreover, Hamilton was killed shortly after our nation’s birth in a duel with Aaron Burr in 1804, just three years after Hamilton’s son Phillip had died the same death.

And such poor “scholarship,” which is really no more than a collection of allegations, feeds upon itself. For example, within this blog, the unproven allegations about Hamilton’s sexual habits and Washington’s subsequent unproven toleration of those habits are accepted as fact by the blog’s author, who actually contends that these things demonstrate that “Washington was certainly gay- friendly.”

‘Facts Are Stubborn Things’

Keep in mind, there are no facts to support his assertion, and in this specific case, there is solid evidence to the contrary, especially with regard to Washington’s position on homosexual behavior in the military.

Case in point: The Writings of George Washington: Bicentennial Edition (vol. 11, p. 83-84) contains the following account dated March 10, 1778, from Washington’s own pen:

“At a General Court Marshall whereof Colo. Tupper was President Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regimnet [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, [was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th Section of the Articles of War and … [sentenced] him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy.” (Italics in original)

Washington’s account is clear. The lieutenant’s attempt to “commit sodomy” — and the lies he told to cover it up — resulted in his being dismissed from the military “with Infamy.” And lest anyone think Washington was not in agreement with the verdict, the following sentence is also contained in the entry:

“His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Liett. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return.”

As John Adams, the second president of the U.S., famously stated, “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot change the state of facts and evidence.” And the facts stand as a bulwark that cannot be moved by sloppy scholarship and agenda-driven claims, such as, “The Father of Our Country was gay-friendly toward his key military personnel at the most pivotal point in American history.”

Washington understood the nature and needs of the military. Although the history of Washington and the other Founders has been rewritten by postmodern activists and historians, looking to add some weight to their cause, the truth is evident when the Founders are “un- rewritten” through careful inquiry into their words and actions.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Find out what schools are teach- ing in “Californians Raising Objec- tions to New ‘Gay History’ Law” (http://bit.ly/oijWtG) and “The First Conservatives: The Constitu- tional Challenge to Progressivism” (http://bit.ly/nSiPBO) — produced by The Heritage Foundation. Books on the Founding Fathers are avail- able at FocusOnTheFamily.com/ Resources.

AWR Hawkins is senior opinion editor and writer for the Alliance Defense Fund (telladf.org). He was a visiting fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal (summer 2010) and has a Ph.D. in military history from Texas Tech University.

AWR Hawkins

About:
AWR Hawkins writes for all the BIG sites, for Pajamas Media, for RedCounty.com, for Townhall.com and now AmmoLand Shooting Sports News.

His southern drawl is frequently heard discussing his take on current events on radio shows like America’s Morning News, the G. Gordon Liddy Show, the Ken Pittman Show, and the NRA’s Cam & Company, among others. He was a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal (summer 2010), and he holds a PhD in military history from Texas Tech University.

If you have questions or comments, email him at awr@awrhawkins.com. You can find him on facebook at www.facebook.com/awr.hawkins.

The Liberal's Version of the Second Amendment

AmmoLand Gun News

Dallas, TX - -(Ammoland.com)- In a few days, on July 4, we once again will commemorate the work and courage of America’s 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence.

Few words are as inspiring as those that rallied patriots in 1776:

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, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

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 — That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed…

Rights endowed by their Creator (“Nature’s God”) and secured by government?

That doesn’t exactly sound like yesterday’s news or today’s understanding of God and government.

Consider these two headlines from just this past week: “NBC dumps ‘under God’ from Pledge at U.S. Open” and “New York Atheists Angry Over ‘Heaven’ Street Sign Honoring Sept. 11 Victims.”

In November 2005, an MSNBC poll asked, “Should the motto ‘In God We Trust’ be removed from U.S. currency?” In March 2004, a CNBC poll asked, “Should the words ‘under God’ be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance?”

Then, despite the fact that more than 80 percent responded in the negative to both of those questions, NBC twice omitted the words “under God” from a patriotic montage in which children recited the Pledge of Allegiance during the start of the recent U.S. Open golf tournament. NBC later apologized for the omission after nationwide outrage, but the damage already had been done.

Similarly, Fox News reported last week that some New York City atheists are demanding the removal of a street sign, newly dedicated to honor seven firefighters killed in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. They say the new street sign, “Seven in Heaven Way,” which was posted in Brooklyn outside the firehouse where the firefighters once served, is a violation of the separation of church and state.

Posting a street sign with the term “heaven” on it is a violation of the separation of church and state?

We definitely don’t live in our Founders’ world anymore, but that doesn’t mean we have to abandon the very principles on which they founded our republic.

Freedom of religion and expression (including religious expression) was so fundamental and important to our Founders that they mandated the liberty in the very first part of our Bill of Rights. Whether on street signs, in congressional corridors or at sporting events, government is called to protect (not prohibit) our right to religious practice and speech. As Thomas Jefferson said, “a Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government … and what no just government should refuse or rest on inference.”

Luckily, we have a Bill of Rights. But the threats against it are constant and growing. The wording of the Bill of Rights is not ambiguous. But people who want to expand the power of government keep chipping away at, modifying and replacing what it actually says.

In 1823, near the end of his life, Jefferson similarly wrote: “On every question of construction (of the Constitution), let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

The phrase “separation of church and state” actually comes from a letter Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists. He told them that no particular Christian denomination was going to have a monopoly in government. His words “a wall of separation between church and state” were written not to remove all religious practice from government or civic settings, but to prohibit the domination and even legislation of religious sectarians. The Danbury Baptists had written to him seeking reassurance that their religious liberty would be guaranteed, not that religious expression on public grounds would be banned.

Liberals would have you believe it establishes a “separation of church and state.” But that phrase appears nowhere in the First Amendment, which actually reads, “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.”

(Part of the article above is from my most recent New York Times best-seller, “Black Belt Patriotism,” now revised and available in paperback.)

Chuck Norris

COPYRIGHT 2011 CHUCK NORRIS

About Chuck Norris:Action hero and Second Amendment activist, Chuck Norris is one of the most enduringly popular actors in the world. He has starred in more than 20 major motion pictures. His television series “Walker, Texas Ranger,” which completed its run in April 2001 after eight full seasons, is the most successful Saturday night series on CBS since “Gunsmoke.” In 2006, he added the title of columnist to his illustrious list of credits with the launch of his popular Internet column.

Now Chuck is a regular contributor to AmmoLand, click the following link to See more of Chuck Norris on AmmoLand Shooting Sports News.

National Association for Gun Rights

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Make no mistake! Our Founders were onto something when they enshrined the right to keep and bear arms as the Second Amendment to our nation’s founding document, the United States Constitution.

Because the Second Amendment is part of our nation’s supreme law, attacking gun rights means attacking the very foundation of the country.

The gun grabbers know they have to deal with this supreme law at some point if they’re going to push their radical agenda through.

And so they’ve decided to rewrite the Bill of Rights to best suit their plans.

That’s right. In an attempt to circumvent our nation’s fundamental law, Barack Obama has rewritten his own version of the Bill of Rights and posted it on the White House website.

According to Obama, “The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.”

I don’t know about you, but my right to defend myself comes from my Creator — not from government, not from some bureaucrat or politician, but from my very nature as a human being.

I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that redefining a fundamental right as a privilege is a very dangerous path to start down.

A right is inherent in our humanity and can never be taken away.

A privilege can be removed at the whim of one’s rulers.

But the President’s redefinition of our nation’s fundamental law isn’t enough for some anti-freedom zealots.

Gun grabbers in our government-run education system are now seeking to brainwash your children into accepting their anti-gun agenda — also by rewriting the Bill of Rights.

Lesson plans in Garland, Texas, (Texas?! Really?!) now teach the Second Amendment by summarizing as follows, “Amendment 2: We can get permission to own weapons to protect ourselves.”

This couldn’t be any further from what the Second Amendment clearly states!

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

(NOTE: The Garland Independent School District has admitted that this was a mistake and says they are taking steps to ensure proper education on the second amendment.)

I want you to call the White House and the Garland Independent School District and demand they restore the original language to the Second Amendment.

The White House Comment Line: 202-456-1111
GISD Superintendent Curtis Culwell: 972-487–3023

Tell them you will not stand for revisionist history or the weakening of our nation’s fundamental law. The Founding Fathers wrote it that way for a reason!