Charity Over Welfare

Tweet

In 1887, a severe drought resulted in widespread crop failure throughout the state of Texas. As the crisis garnered national attention, Congress was eager to pass a bill to assist struggling farmers in the American West that would "enable the Commissioner of Agriculture to make a special distribution of seeds in drought-stricken counties of Texas, and making an appropriation there-for."

President Grover Cleveland, famous for his 584 vetoes and strict Constitutionalist beliefs, had his reservations about the bill and vetoed it. Upon submitting his veto to Congress, Cleveland remarked:

". . . And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose. 

 I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."

Cleveland went on to appeal to his countrymen to voluntarily give to the suffering farmers, which actually ended up providing more relief to the farmers than Congress intended with the bill.

There are two lessons to this story. The first is that government aid or "welfare" is unconstitutional; the second is that private charity is superior to government handouts.

The federal government (as opposed to the states) has no constitutional authority to redistribute the wealth of the citizens of the states. James Madison, in rejecting a proposal to offer financial aid to French refugees that had settled in America, stated:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

In 1830, Congressman Davy Crocket voted against giving a sum of public money to the widow of a deceased veteran (could you imagine the outrage nowadays?): 

" . . . I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity . . . We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money . . . I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bills asks.^"

 

In his First Inaugural Address in 1801, Thomas Jefferson said:

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

In a letter to Joseph Milligan dated April 6, 1816, Jefferson wrote:

 

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

These men understood that charity is far more effective at helping the less fortunate than government aid. Don't believe it? Well, consider the fact that out of every tax-dollar given to federal welfare programs, only 20-30 cents actually reaches those in need. The vast majority of those tax-dollars do nothing but feed the wasteful, unnecessary government bureaucracy.  Meanwhile, out of every dollar given to charity, between 70-80% of it goes directly to the needy.*

*Source: The Costs of Public Income Redistribution and Private Charity [pdf], by economist James Rolph Edwards, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 21, Number 2 (Summer 2007).

From the same source:

“[R]aising only half as much money through voluntary donations, the private agencies (and families) could deliver the same amount as the government, saving, in the process, all the costs the government imposes on the public through the compulsory taxation.”

The thing is, if you decide that one charity doesn't give enough to the poor or they're wasteful, etc., you have the option of donating to a different, more effective charity. Hence, there is an incentive among charities to provide a high level of service and efficiency. On the other hand, if you decide not to pay your taxes because you don't approve of how the government manages its welfare programs, you go to jail.

Now go sit in the corner and think about how you could've been more charitable.

All government agencies and departments are encouraged to spend their appropriated money; if they have money left at the end of a budget period, that saved money is removed from their allotted budgets for the following year. However, if the department spends way over its budget, it's seen as "underfunded" and immediately given more money. There's no incentive for the government to provide a better service to the less fortunate, because either way it's going to get its cheese.

Yum. Government cheese.

This evidence flies directly in the face of those who think that the government should or even can help the poor. Think of how stupid that logic is: it's better to trust politicians, who by their very nature are often the most morally repugnant people in any given society, with billions of forcefully-taken tax-dollars to properly care for those in desperate need, rather than allow charities, individuals, local communities, and basically those that actually care to voluntarily sacrifice to help their neighbors and countrymen.

In over 50 major cities in America, including New York City, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Miami, and my native Philadelphia, churches and individuals are actually forbidden from giving out food to the needy without first getting a permit. That's right, it's illegal to help others unless the state gives you the O-K.

 

Such unspeakable evil!

Those who irrationally believe that government aid is superior to charity either have absolutely no faith in other humans (despite their naive trust in authority figures and government institutions to do what is best for us), or simply do not understand how inefficient government is at providing any service, especially help.

Please share this if you agree!

Tweet

4 False Flags That Led To American Wars

Tweet

What's a false flag? A false flag is any operation that is made to seem like it was carried out by or the fault of someone else. Usually, these are terror attacks designed to draw popular support from the country that was attacked for a war or some kind of political gain.

A common example of a false flag is the Gleivitz Incident. The Incident was an SS-fabricated Polish attack on a German radio station. German soldiers, under orders from  Reinhard Heydrich, donned Polish army uniforms, stormed a German radio station on the German-Polish border, and began broadcasting anti-German messages. Hitler used the false flag to justify the invasion of Poland, and WW2 was started.

Do you think the good-ol' USA is above such disgusting, underhanded tactics? Here are five reasons to think again:

1. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident

On August 4, 1964, President Johnson claimed American ships were twice attacked by North Vietnamese forced in the Tonkin Gulf. In response, LBJ escalated air strikes against North Vietnam, and issued the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution on Aug. 7. This resolution gave the president the authority "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression." So began the Vietnam War.

What really happened?
Sounds somewhat justified, right? That is, until you find out that there was no attack on U.S. ships on August 4, 1964. The commander of the task force in the gulf, Capt. John Herrick, blamed "freak weather effects," "almost total darkness" and an "overeager sonarman" who "was hearing ship's own propeller beat." Basically, jumpy soldiers thought they were being attacked when they weren't.

Oh, and the "task force" in the gulf that LBJ claimed was on "routine patrol" was actually on an aggressive intelligence-gathering mission, even coordinating attacks on North Vietnam with Laotian and South Vietnamese forces. In fact, just two days before, there were two attacks on North Vietnamese bases.

Navy pilot (flying right over the ships that night) and future VP candidate for Ross Perot, James Stockdale, reported: "I had the best seat in the house to watch that event, and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets — there were no PT boats there.... There was nothing there but black water and American fire power."

Even the man who went on national TV lied directly to the American people, Lyndon Johnson commented in 1965: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there." Almost 60,000 American soldiers died in the Vietnam War. God bless America.

2. Pearl Harbor Attacked!

On December 7, 1941, about 3,000 U.S. servicemen were killed by a surprise attack by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The attack came without any notice or leaked information from the Japanese, and President Franklin Roosevelt succumbed to public pressure was reluctantly forced into World War 2.

What really happened?
FDR not only knew the Japanese attack was coming, but he also provoked it and let it happen so the U.S. had an excuse to officially enter WW2 (it was already providing money and equipment to Britain, France, and Russia).

On October 7, 1940, one of Roosevelt's military advisors, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum, wrote a memo detailing an 8-step plan that would provoke Japan into attacking the United States. 

Among the provocations was the total blockade of Japanese oil imports agreed upon by the US, Britain, and the Dutch. FDR also started an all-out embargo of Japan, and forbade them the use of the Panama canal, which eliminated the Japanese ability to get much-needed oil from South American countries like Venezuela. Another provocation was that the United States authorized an all-volunteer air-group called the Flying Tigers to fight the Japanese in China. Even before Pearl Harbor, these squadrons had already shot down over 100 Japanese fighters above China.

Before the "surprise" attack and unbeknownst to the Japanese, the United States had already broken the encryption codes used by the Japanese military. The US could automatically decrypt any coded Japanese military or political messages almost as soon as they were transmitted. With this decryption, the US was even able to keep tabs on not only Japan's military communications, but also Japan's internal politics and squabbles.

The Japanese Navy, far from keeping radio silence, sent over 1000 transmissions during its voyage from Japan to Hawaii. Most or all of these transmissions had been deciphered, including one request for the exact coordinates of multiple different American ships in the harbor. Another message, directly from Admiral Yamamoto, read:  

"The task force, keeping its movement strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet and deal it a mortal blow. The first air raid is planned for the dawn of x-day. Exact date to be given by later order."

On January 27, 1941, Joseph C. Grew, the U.S. ambassador to Japan, wired Washington that he'd learned of the surprise attack Japan was preparing for Pearl Harbour. The night before the attack, President Roosevelt, members of his cabinet, and top military leaders already had all the necessary information on the Japanese attack, such as the when and the where, but did not inform the commanders at Pearl Harbor.

Even US Admiral James Richardson objected to FDR's insistance that the fleet be docked in the strategically-vulnerable bottleneck of Pearl Harbor, where no escape could be made in the event of an attack. For his keen insight and service, Admiral Richardson was promptly fired by FDR.

Secretary of War Henry Stimson recorded a meeting of FDR's top advisors in his diary in November, 1941: "The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into … firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."

The attack led to the destruction of several US ships, but all of the ships left in the harbor by that point were out-of-date, WW1-era ships, and none were aircraft carriers. FDR, knowing that his aircraft carriers were the most important pieces to a war with Japan, moved the Enterprise and the Lexington out to sea, and the Saratoga to San Diego not long before the attacks.

A day that will live in infamy, indeed.

3. Sinking of the Lusitania

On May 7, 1915, during World War 1, almost 1,200 people were killed when the British passenger ship RMS Lusitania was torpedoed and sunk by a German submarine off the coast of Ireland. While Germany insisted that the ship, the fastest cruise-liner in the Atlantic, was carrying munitions and supplies for the Allied powers, it was maintained by the Allies that the Lusitania was unarmed and therefore the attack was unprovoked. The attack resulted in widespread support for the United States' entry into WW1.

What really happened?
Unrestricted submarine warfare was a touchy subject in WW1. The Germans, trying to blockade Britain and "starve" the country out of the war, warned us that there was... eh, kind of a war going on, y'know? And that any ships en-route to Europe could be searched, seized, or attacked as under suspicion of supplying the British. Eventually, Germany relented to pressure from the US to stop unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic ocean, but quickly resumed the practice in the areas around the English Isles.

Before the Lusitania left on its final voyage, the German embassy in the US bought out 50 ads in American newspapers, warning people of the dangers of submarine warfare during trans-Atlantic voyages at the time:

Notice! Travellers intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travellers sailing in the war zone on the ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk. Imperial German Embassy
Washington, D.C. 22 April 1915

In complete disregard of the warnings from Germany, the US continued to load passenger ships with supplies and munitions and used them as very explosive mules - while still transporting civilians, mind you - to get supplies past the German U-boats and into Europe. Unlike what we're told in the official story, the Lusitania was NOT only carrying passengers.

The truth is that the Lusitania was carrying approximately 4 million rounds of ammunition on top of other explosive supplies, below the ship's waterline. Vulnerable to torpedo attacks, this large cache of munitions is the most likely reason for the massive ship sinking so quickly (20 minutes).

Many high ranking officials were already hoping for a war, such as Winston Churchill, who wrote in a confidential letter shortly before the sinking: 

"It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hope especially of embroiling the U.S. with Germany. For our part we want the traffic  -  the more the better and if some of it gets into trouble, better still."

So, after completely ignoring all of Germany's warnings, after using innocent civilians as shields for their supply ships, and after even hoping for a confrontation, American and British leaders feigned surprise and outrage at the sinking of the Lusitania, using the tragic loss of life to greatly increase American popular support for the war.

4. U.S.S. Maine Explodes

On February 15, 1898, the USS Maine suddenly exploded while it was docked off of Havana, Cuba as a "show of force" to the crumbling Spanish Empire. The explosion killed over 260 men. The Spanish were immediately blamed for the sabotage of the Maine, and by April, were at war with the US, which claimed it was "liberating" Cuba and several other Spanish colonies (although these colonies were not allowed any part of the peace negotiations).

What really happened?
Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain! Right? Well, not really. You see, there was no investigation whatsoever into what caused the explosion until after the Spanish American War was already over. First, people were convinced that it was triggered by a mine planted under the hull by a Spaniard. However, more recent discoveries have revealed that the most likely cause for the incident was a total accident: a spontaneous coal fire managed to spread into the ship's ammunition magazine, where all the explosives on the ship are kept.

But the US had been aching for a Spanish-American war even before the Maine. A minor revolution had begun in Spanish Cuba, and US business interests were nervous that they would lose control over their sugar and tobacco interests on the island. US newspapers flooded the country with false stories of Spanish brutality and even cannabalism in Cuba just to stir anti-Spanish sentiment. After the Maine's being sent down to deter the rebels, the spontaneous explosion of the ship was just what the warhawks needed to get support for the war.

The Spanish American War ended with America taking control of several other former Spanish colonies: Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines (all of which had nothing to do with the USS Maine explosion, but were "liberated" anyway).


So next time you think that our government would never engage in a false-flag operation, remember these five events. To find out just how common such warmongering and disrespect for life really is, just take a look at the following video where Patrick Clawson, a director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, openly muses about the possibility of using a false-flag operation to begin a war against Iran:

 

And don't forget, these are only 4 examples of false-flag events orchestrated by the US. There are dozens more. Makes you wonder what other recent wars were started by a false flag, and when we'll see another (maybe the USS Enterprise sitting in the Strait of Hormuz?).

Please share!

Tweet

Ron Paul's 10 Principles Of A Free Society

Tweet

Having just finished reading "The Good Doctor" Ron Paul's book, Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom*, I felt compelled to share a tiny piece of it with you. At the very end of the book (the appendix, in fact), Ron Paul added what I considered the most important part of the book:

"The ten principles of a free society:

1. Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government. 

2. All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order.

3. Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments.

4. Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group.

5. Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves.

6. Government may not claim the monopoly over a people's money and government must never engage in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability.

7. Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden.

8. Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm.

9. All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution. 

10. Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave."

The Good Doctor left a prescription of ten principles for us to follow in order to remedy our ailing country and communities. Without a doubt, if we were to adopt these ideas as our common values and put in a little hard work, we may just be able to reach a truly voluntary, liberty-loving society. Share this if you agree.

*Paul, Ron. Liberty Defined. New York: Grand Central Publishing. 2011.
  Tweet

Economic Vs. Personal Freedoms

Tweet

 "The control of the production of wealth is the control of human life itself."

- Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State

One of the major mistakes made by leftists/progressives/socialists/statists is the idea that economic and personal liberties are divisible and by giving up some economic freedom we can gain a proportional or greater amount of personal freedom. This could not be further from the truth, as state control of the economy is no less than state control of everyday life.

Really, the "economic sphere" of your life covers the same area as your "personal sphere." An economy isn't just graphs and numbers and dollar signs; it's billions of people acting on a voluntary, individual basis through a multitude of means and organizations to achieve their own personal goals. It's not something that can be accurately measured or quantified, and this is also the reason why all state-run economies eventually collapse.

Therefore, if the government implements taxes and laws and regulations that infringe on our "economic" rights, we don't somehow gain personal liberties, as statists illogically believe. It's a net loss of freedom, and inevitably leads to a totalitarian state. It's completely irrational, ridiculous even, to think that we can be freer by giving up our freedoms.

It's not called the Statue of Non-economic Liberty

Economic freedom is one's right to his or her life and property. No one has the right to deprive someone of those things. When someone is assaulted, burglarized, killed, or held captive, we recognize these actions as criminal. Yet for some reason we allow the most oppressive tool known to man - government - to act outside the few moral values that the vast majority of people on earth can actually agree upon. Walt Whitman, among others, regularly praised the dignity and liberty of the individual. From Whitman's "Duties of Government" (1846):

"One point, however, must not be forgotten--ought to be put before the eyes of the people every day; and that is, although government can do little positive good to the people, it may do an immense deal of harm. . . . the Democratic principle . . . would prevent all this harm. It would have no man's benefit achieved at the expense of his neighbors. It would have no one's rights infringed upon and that, after all, is pretty much the sum an substance of the prerogatives of government. How beautiful and harmonious a system! How it transcends all other codes, as the golden rule, in its brevity, transcends the ponderous tomes of the philosophic lore! While mere politicians, in their narrow minds, are sweating and fuming with their complicated statutes, this one single rules, rationally construed and applied, is enough to form the starting point of all that is necessary in government: to make no more laws than those useful for preventing a man or body of men from infringing on the rights of other men."

There's a man who knows what's up.

Instead, we allow our government the power of taxation, or "legal plunder," in the words of Frederic Bastiat, the power to seize private property through "eminent domain," the power to tell us how to run our business, the power to decide how much our money is worth through the Federal Reserve, and the power to detain citizens without charges or a trial, among other abuses. All of these abuses are grounded in a disrespect of the right to life and property.

This sweeping government power is sold to us as a way to "protect" us from "the rich" and "the corrupt" and lead us to prosperity and blah, blah, blah. However, with a powerful government, all we're doing is making it easier to abuse us for those that are rich and powerful and corrupt. In his book, The Revolution: A Manifesto, Ron Paul states:

"The rich are more than happy to secure for themselves a share of the loot - for example, in the form of subsidized low-interest loans (as with the Export-Import Bank), bailouts when their risky loans go sour, or regulatory schemes that hurt their smaller competitors or make it harder for new ones to enter an industry."

Instead of having to go around to get each and every individual state legislature and executive to pass a law (which would require the inclusion of hundreds if not thousands of people and millions or billions of dollars in the scheme), all the elites have to do is go straight to D.C.

Once we sacrifice our economic liberties and give the federal government power over and the authority to regulate the economy, we're effectively hanging a gigantic FOR SALE sign over not only our country, but our daily lives. Freedom, whether it's considered personal, economic, or political, is not divisible. Tweet

Socialism is Incompatible With Liberty

Tweet

 

Opponents of free markets claim that the economy needs to be "directed" or "managed," usually toward some kind of vague social goal or "common good." In other words, we sacrifice some economic liberty for personal liberty. 

However, this belief in socialism - and I'm defining that as state control and planning of resources and production - makes two incorrect assumptions: first, that there is a universally agreed-upon ethical code about what measures to take on what issues, and second, that it is possible to effectively direct and manage an economy without destroying the rights of the citizens.

In case you haven't noticed, there are millions of different opinions on just about every single issue you can think of; from economic regulations to how to dice an onion, everybody never agrees with everybody else. Therefore, the idea that there is a universal ethical code in which every single human value and opinion is accounted for and assigned a value is absolutely irrational. As Friedrich Hayek said in The Road To Serfdom:

Friedrich A. Hayek

"There are certain functions of the state on the exercise of which there will be practical unanimity among its citizens; there will be others on which there will be agreement of a substantial majority; and so on, until we come to fields where, although each individual might wish the state to act in some way, there will be almost as many views about what the government should do as there are different people."

In other words, the state will eventually have to make judgement calls that ignore the liberties, opinions, and values of a substantial portion of the population for the benefit of a smaller portion. One group will lobby against the other, and another against another, until there is total gridlock and no government action.

The call for swift, efficient government action will inevitably lead to the consolidation of power in the hands of one man or a small council. This man, for the sake of argument, would be faced with a daunting task indeed. In the words of Adam Smith, author of the Wealth of Nations:

Adam Smith

"The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what matter they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."

We've already established that an economy is the people acting on an individual basis through a multitude of means to achieve their own personal goals. So if someone were to assume the task of controlling that activity, they would literally be aiming to control all of human life.

For example, with a state-controlled economy, the planner would eventually have to regulate the daily habits of every citizen - foods eaten, amount of water consumed, exercise regimen, etc., all the way down to how many hours of sleep a citizen gets. Government will have to set quotas on sheets of toilet paper used, how much gasoline can be purchased at a time, how many razor blades should be produced, and even where workers live and what they think. 

Every single facet of ours lives would have to be balanced against others and decided by the government in order to keep everything in line with the state's economic goals. Those who clamor for government control of the economy are really asking for an economic dictator. According to Hayek:

"Most planners who have seriously considered the practical aspects of their task have little doubt that a directed economy must be run on more or less dictatorial lines. That the complex system of interrelated activities, if it is to be consciously directed at all, must be directed by a single staff of experts, and that ultimate responsibility and power must rest in the hands of a commander in chief whose actions must not be fettered by democratic procedure, is too obvious a consequence of underlying ideas of central planning not to command fairly general assent."

 

Effective central planning by itself is impossible. Effective central planning with regard for freedom is incomprehensible.  Really, the only economic system compatible with liberty is free-market capitalism, in which resources and production are controlled by individual people and not interfered with by the government.

Tweet

Mr. Paul Goes To Washington

Tweet

While watching Rand Paul's filibuster of John Brennan's nomination to CIA Director, I can't help but think of one of my favorite movies: Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, starring James Stewart.

The movie is centered on a good-hearted, principled, and optimistic young man name Jefferson Smith who is chosen to replace a recently deceased senator. The Governor appoints Mr. Smith with the assumption that his idealism and naivity could be used to make him a yes-man for the wealthy political boss Jim Taylor.

However, Jeff Smith gradually discovers his role as a stooge and takes a stand against the corrupt political machine. It all comes to a point in the final scene where he filibusters a budget appropriation bill that contains a special handout to the corrupt Jim Taylor. 

Jeff Smith is made to look like a corrupt fool as his name is dragged through the mud by the politically-owned media. Eventually, his efforts are rewarded when Jeff Smith's former friend Senator Paine, racked with guilt over betraying the young Senator, breaks down and confesses to corruption in front of the Senate.

 

Now we have Mr. Paul Goes To Washington, where Rand Paul takes a stand against the government's ability to execute American citizens without due process of law.

Even Eric Holder has claimed that the Obama administration has the authority to kill American citizens on American soil without a trial or even charges being brought against them (link). This frightening claim by the Attorney General gives Obama the kingly power of being judge, jury, and executioner.

In a country that claims to protect and cherish liberty and justice, it is entirely impossible to justify such a tyrannical concept as execution without due process. Yet between the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act, the federal government has all it needs to turn our country into an Orwellian police state.

All I can say is, keep going Rand.Tweet

5 Myths About Abraham Lincoln

Tweet

Abraham Lincoln is one of the most revered presidents in eyes of many Americans. From lip-syncing in awful car commercials to being portrayed by elite actors in award-winning Hollywood productions, few historical figures - especially presidents - can match the level of popularity and respect of Honest Abe. 

The problem is that the Abraham Lincoln known by most is a complete myth. Without a doubt, Lincoln caused more damage to individual rights and had less respect for the founding principles of our country than any other president before or since. In short, Lincoln was a tyrant. Here are five of the most common myths about Lincoln dispelled:

Myth #1: Lincoln's war saved the Union.

Nothing saves a country like a civil war.

The reality: Lincoln's war ended the voluntary nature of the Constitution at gunpoint. 

In all of our founding documents - the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution - the states described themselves as "free and independent." The intention was for the individual states (and their residents) to retain their sovereignty over domestic issues while the Federal government was only given very specific powers (foreign affairs and multi-state disputes) as enumerated in the Constitution. This is why we have the understanding that the government gets its power from the consent of the governed.

Lincoln ended that. By declaring war on states that had seceded peacefully, Lincoln made membership in the Union compulsory. Even if the people of the southern states no longer consented to being governed by what they believed to be an oppressive and dictatorial government, Lincoln was going to force them to submit.

Abraham Lincoln set the precedent of the Federal government trampling over the rights of the states. This is one of the biggest reasons we have such an out-of-control Federal government: the Civil War destroyed the power of the states to stand up to abuses by the Federal government.

Myth #2: Lincoln had to invade the South to end slavery.

The reality: Abe Lincoln didn't care about slavery, and he certainly didn't have to invade the South to end it. Here are Lincoln's own words concerning his objective for the war:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." 
- Lincoln in a letter to Horace Greeley - Aug. 22, 1862

"I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." 
- Lincoln during his first debate with Stephan Douglas - Aug. 21, 1858

The only reason Lincoln may have pushed to abolish slavery was to cripple the Southern economy, not because he was opposed to the institution itself. Let's not forget that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free any slaves, and Lincoln actually had very, very little to do with the passage of the 13th Amendment.

If Abe's objective was to end slavery, then a war was completely unnecessary. During the 19th century, there were dozens of countries that abolished slavery peacefully, without fighting a war over it (through compensated emancipation). These countries include: the British and Spanish empires, Mexico, all of Central America, French and Danish colonies, and Bolivia, and Chile, and Venezuela, among many others. 

It's pretty obvious that even if there was no Civil War, slavery in America was becoming very unpopular and would've ended anyway. Considering that Jefferson Davis sent several diplomats to Lincoln to negotiate peace and even stated that the Southern states only wished to be left alone, it seems that war really was the last resort for everyone but Lincoln.

Myth #3: Lincoln championed racial equality.

The reality: Lincoln was no fan of black people. 

I'll let Honest Abe speak for himself on this one:

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." 
- Lincoln during his first debate with Stephan Douglas - Aug. 21, 1858

"I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes." 
- Lincoln during his fourth debate with Stephan Douglas - Sept. 18, 1858

"Negro equality? Fudge! How long in the Government of a God great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue knaves to vend and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagoguism as this?" - Lincoln, Fragments: Notes for Speeches, Sept. 1859 (Vol. III)

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believed will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
- Lincoln during his fourth debate with Stephan Douglas - Sept. 18, 1858

Moreover, Lincoln didn't want blacks staying in America after they were freed. He was an outspoken advocate of what was, at the time, called "colonization," or shipping all the black people back to Africa. His own words:

"I cannot make it better known than it already is that I strongly favor colonization." 
- Lincoln's Second Annual Message to Congress, Dec. 1, 1862

Myth #4: Lincoln defended civil rights.

The reality: Lincoln had nothing but contempt for the Constitution and personal freedom. Lincoln...

• Invaded the South without the consent of the people (Congress),
• Started the nation's first compulsory draft,
• Suspended the right to a trial, 
• Imprisoned between 12,000-30,000 Northern anti-war protestors (without trial),
• Declared martial law that put millions under military rule,
• Blockaded Southern ports without a declaration of war (forcing the South into a fight),
• Deported representatives that publically opposed him (Clement Vallandigham),
• Confiscated private property (including guns),
• Destroyed the 9th and 10th Amendments,
• Jailed owners and editors of newspapers that criticized him,
• Censored all newspapers and telegraphs,
• Nationalized the railroads,
• Arbitrarily created three new states to boost the Republican Party's electoral vote, and...
• Ordered troops to interfere in Northern elections on the side of Republicans.

Myth #5: Lincoln was honest.

The reality: "Lincoln was a master politician, which means that he was a consummate conniver, manipulator, and liar." - Murray Rothbard

This is probably the most popular myth: good-ol' Honest Abe. Unfortunately, Lincoln was known for saying one thing in front of one crowd and something contradictory to another. Afer all, this was before the internet and the only way people would catch on is if they actually went to every one of his speeches or appearances. For example, while on the campaign trail, Lincoln would talk in fiery abolitionist rhetoric to the anti-slavery crowd while talking up states rights and insulting black people in the Southern states. 

Let's not forget that Lincoln manipulated the country into an unnecessary, evil war. Lincoln provoked the South into firing the first shots at Fort Sumter (no Northern troops were even killed during event). Lincoln, knowing that Governor Pickens of South Carolina had already asked the Federals to abandon the fort (given that S.C. had seceded and had the rights to Fort Sumter), sent ships, troops, and munitions to resupply it. Lincoln hoped that the South would mistake the sudden movement of a large amount of troops as an act of war, and it did. The Charlestown militia took Lincoln's bait and started bombarding the fort, and the rest is history.

Tweet

Lobbying Is A Symptom Of Big Government

Tweet

A common complaint heard from any side in a political argument is the outrageous amount of influence lobbyists have in Washington D.C. The concern is merited, as well: in the 2012 presidential election, Republican Mitt Romney gathered over $990 million to spend on his bid, while Barack Obama raised over $1 billion. Representatives from every industry lobby the government for handouts, subsidies, and regulations. 

The question is how do we limit the ability of the rich and powerful to use their wealth to oppress those who don't have the means or desire to buy a politician? 

Some will argue that we need to prevent corporations and unions from campaigning or donating, but proponents of these idea ignore that individuals do not lose their rights (to free speech, for example) just because they are acting through an organization. Otherwise, television, radio, magazine, newspaper, and especially internet-based companies would have to seek government approval before they could televise/broadcast/publish anything. 

Technically, everyone has the right to lobby because of freedom of speech. Using government force to curb that freedom for anyone should be an obvious no-go.

Donation limits make absolutely no sense either. How does one's right to support a candidate stop at an arbitrary dollar amount? All donation limits have done is made common the use of political action committees (PACs) as a way around them.  Further donation limit restrictions will simply force even more of these dealings under the table and out of public eyes, which often results in more corruption with larger amounts of money.

Some argue for term limits, but this may just encourage politicians to become even more corrupt as they try to squeeze every last penny and favor out of the public before they can't do it again. While I support term limits, they will do nothing to address the problem.

The last, but possibly the worst suggestion is taxpayer-funded election campaigns which, it is believed, will completely remove private interests from elections. All this does is, as I mentioned, force the money out of view without stopping the problem. The worst part about this suggestion is the fact that it forces people to pay for the campaigns of candidates they may not even support. Mandatory donations, in a nutshell.

Both the problem and the cure is in the scope of our government. In case you missed it, our "leaders" handed out about $700 billion a few years ago to some of their banker buddies disguised as a "bailout" and they continue to hand out billions of dollars more as unnecessary "subsidies" to leaders in other industries. With so much money and power up for grabs, why wouldn't a large company try to buy influence over a lawmaker or two? That way they can either get some taxpayer dollars or have their man pass regulations that the company can pay for but its smaller competitors can't.

It's only because we've concentrated so much power in the Federal government that lobbying is such a problem. If someone's goal is to buy power and influence, how convenient it must be to have one single all-powerful institution to target rather than tens, hundreds, or even thousands of smaller, localized governments with which to bargain and scheme. Our Founders were aware of this fact; after all, they had just spent almost a decade rebelling against an omnipotent king that had oppressed them from across the Atlantic ocean. Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"I believe the States can best govern our home concerns, and the General Government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore, to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by the constitution for the limitation of both; and never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at market." - Thomas Jefferson

Here, Jefferson warns of the inevitable corruption of centralized government. The Constitution distributed power so that most of it rests at the individual and local level and the least at the federal level. Think of the power structure as a pyramid: individuals make up the base (the broadest, largest part with the most power), state governments and local communities form the middle, and the federal government (Congress, President, Supreme Court) makes up the top, which should have the least amount of power.

Kind of like the food pyramid, except without the B.S.

Luckily for the corrupt, we've managed to flip that pyramid over. Instead, the federal government has been assigned the broadest spectrum of powers in our society and the individual the fewest. This didn't make us safer or more prosperous; it just turned presidents and senators into more worthwhile investments. 

By enlarging the powers of our government past their Constitutional boundaries, even with good intentions, we only put more and more power up for sale for those who have the desire and means to get it.

Tweet