Since politicians are such easy targets for our derision, it almost makes you feel bad pointing out their numerous shortcomings…almost. After all, if you can’t laugh at yourself, make fun of other people.

From Jay Leno…

“Energy Secretary Stephen Chu testified before Congress yesterday that he thought it was a good idea to lend $535 million of our tax dollars to the solar panel company Solyndra right before they went bankrupt. If he’d taken all of that money, put it in a big pile and set it on fire, it would have produced more energy than Solyndra.”

“China is facing a financial crisis. The unemployment rate there is a staggering 12% among 3-year-olds.”

“Have you been watching this John Edwards trial? I don’t know what kind of president John Edwards would have been, but I’m pretty sure he would have gotten along really well with the Secret Service.”

“Romney proves with a little hard work and a little luck, even a multimillionaire white guy from Harvard can succeed in this country.”

“President Obama released his tax returns. It turns out he made $900,000 less in 2011 then he did in 2010. You know what that means? Even Obama is doing worse under President Obama.”

From Jimmy Fallon…

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he wants to outlaw prostitution in his home state of Nevada. He said he wants to keep prostitution where it belongs—in Washington, DC.”

From Conan O’Brien…

“[Rick] Santorum says that Satan has his sights set on the United States of America. And today Satan said he tries to avoid politics because it makes him feel dirty.”

“Italian police seized $6 trillion worth of fake, worthless U.S. bonds. Let that be a lesson. If you want to try and sell worthless financial instruments, you’d better be Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. That’s the only way you’re going to get away with it.”

“A new study found that government employees are the happiest workers. The study was not conducted at the DMV.”

From David Letterman…

“Congress is expanding its probe into the Secret Service scandal. Congressmen want to know how this could happen, who was responsible…and do those ladies take Discover cards.”

“A year ago Osama bin Laden was killed. He was executed in Pakistan. They say that Osama bin Laden would be alive today if his bodyguards hadn’t been screwing around with hookers.”

From Craig Ferguson…

“I’m sure both candidates will fall over themselves telling you how much they support public education. Yet neither of them has ever sent any of their kids to a single day of public school. But I’m sure that’s the only area in which they’re a wee bit hypocritical.”

Proving that not everything gets better with age—especially the U.S. Post Office—consider this article from 1985…

James Bovard, “The Last Dinosaur: The U.S. Postal Service” http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa047.html

Then compare it to this article from 2010…

Doug Bandow, “Postal Bankruptcy” http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/postal-bankruptcy

And then try to figure out what has changed since 1985.

Consider the following:

• At the end of FY 2009, the USPS had $33.5 billion in outstanding liabilities and an additional $54.8 billion in unfunded retiree health and pension obligations. In other words, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is effectively bankrupt—losing $7 billion in FY 2010, $10 billion in FY 2011, and expecting to lose $9 billion in FY 2012—and is presently speeding toward unprecedented default as it nears its borrowing limit of $15 billion.
• Realistically, the USPS’s only hope for survival is (1) an indirect taxpayer subsidy, or (2) a ban on private competition. For some mysterious reason, Congress is inclined to believe that forcing Americans to pay more for less service is better than allowing free market competition.
• Congress is authorized by the Constitution “To establish Post Offices”, BUT is NOT required to implement mail delivery nor create a public mail monopoly. Currently, competition exists only for packages and urgent delivery. For regular mail, you must use the USPS and no one else.

Case in point:

• Noted libertarian Lysander Spooner established a low cost delivery service between Boston, Philadelphia, New York, and Baltimore in 1844. Congress responded by imposing fines on private mail carriers.
• Recently, the USPS threatened to sue the Boy Scouts of America who had proposed delivering Christmas cards during the holidays.
• The USPS also discovered companies who were sending international mail abroad with traveling employees and demanded payment for services not rendered.
• All the while postal rates rose more than 50% faster than the rate of inflation.

In short, the USPS has a “the-customer-is-always-last” philosophy in which Americans exist for the postal service, not the other way around.

Their problem is neither difficult to identify nor difficult to solve. Even democratic socialist countries in Europe and elsewhere have embraced the solution with great success—the free market. The result, reported the OECD, was “quality of service improvements, increases in profitability, increases in employment, and real reductions in prices.”

• New Zealand, Sweden, and Finland eliminated their national monopolies and have embraced competition between postal operators.
• Spain’s Correos y Telegrafos faces private competition in many areas, including letters within cities.
• The Netherlands privatized its postal service in 1994 and fully liberalized its delivery market in 2009.
• Germany privatized its postal service, though the government remains a significant shareholder in Deutsche Post.
• Great Britain began deregulation in 2000, and though the Royal Mail still delivers most mail, the market has been fully opened and private operators are increasingly providing delivery services.
• Russia dropped its state monopoly in 1996, though Pochta Rossii continues to handle the bulk of mail.
• Indonesia officially privatized in 2009, though private companies had long ignored state-owned Pos Indonesia’s monopoly.
• Israel allows competition to Israel Post, though the latter receives government subsidies.
• Austria and Belgium have partially privatized their postal operations with Austria significantly reducing categories of mail reserved for state delivery.
• Poland has similarly limited the scope of the state monopoly.
• Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, and Romania are all considering allowing postal competition.
• Even Greece plans partial privatization of the national post.

Ironically, the above-listed governments support “democratic socialism” and have applied pseudo-free market solutions to their postal problems with great success.

BUT…

The government of the United States nominally supports “free market capitalism” and has applied pseudo-socialist solutions to our postal problems with abject failure.

Admittedly, privatization remains difficult considering both legacy costs and labor contracts, but as the Washington Post observed:

• “If Congress gives management the tools it needs to meet the crisis, and if management uses them effectively—two big ifs, we admit—the Postal Service will have a chance to get its house in order and one day attract private capital, as European postal services have done.”

Though Congress granted the USPS independent status in 1970, the postal system remained largely restricted by regulations, supported by subsidies, and protected by its monopoly. Specifically, the USPS is exempt from taxes, regulations, and even parking tickets but that hasn’t been able to stop the bleeding. Since 1971, it has LOST money in 24 of 38 years. The bleeding reached a crisis point in 2007 at the peak of the USPS’s fiscal mismanagement.

According to the Government Accounting Office (GAO):

• “Given its financial problems and outlook, USPS cannot support its current level of service and operations… [In short, the] USPS’s business model is not viable.”

Economist William F. Shughart concurred with the GAO findings and elaborated further:

• “[g]enerous salaries for Postal Service employees, restrictive work rules negotiated by the labor unions that represent them, the continued operation of thousands of obsolete, small-town post offices and failure to adapt to a world in which people communicate by e-mail rather than by first-class mail and pay their bills online.”

The facts seem to support the claims asserted by both the GAO report and Shughart:

• The USPS runs 36,500 post offices in America (more than the number of Starbucks, McDonald’s, and Walgreens—combined).
• The USPS receives an average of only 600 weekly postal customer visits (Walgreens receives 6,000!).
• The USPS loses money at approximately 26,000 of the post offices they operate–$1.4 billion in 2009, and an additional $7 billion in 2010.
• Then-Postmaster General John Potter predicted losses of $238 billion over the next decade.
• Despite a growing American population, the USPS delivered 213 billion pieces of mail in 2006, 177 billion in 2009, a 167 billion in 2010, and a projected 150 billion by 2020—an astonishing decline of 30%.
• Alas, the USPS cannot borrow its way out of this fiscal disaster unless Congress lifts the current $15 billion loan limit.

YET…

• The USPS devotes 80% of its budget to its workforce of 700,000 (slightly less than Wal-Mart employs).
• Union contracts dictate USPS staffing levels and wages, bar or restrict outsourcing, layoffs, part-time/contract work, and employee assignments outside of narrowly defined areas.
• The average USPS salary is $83,500, which makes postal employees among the highest paid semi-skilled workers in America.
• The problem will likely grow even worse as USPS contracts with the four largest unions are scheduled to renew during the next two years.

Undeterred by the facts or even the USPS’s lengthy history of failure, the New York Times lamely asserted:

• “all Americans should not have to rely solely on private businesses for anything as fundamental as mail delivery.” Of course, the Times failed to explain why Americans should be forced to rely on the USPS, which loses money while performing badly.

Indeed, even President Obama noted that:

• “UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, it’s the post office that’s always having problems.”

R8YPAYERMZNW

The U.S. Labor Department’s official unemployment index, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), is based on a monthly survey of sample households that only counts individuals who reported looking for work in the past four weeks. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

What the Labor Department’s BLS index DOES NOT INCLUDE:

• Part-time workers who desire additional work hours but unable to because of the difficult labor market.
• Individuals who have given up trying to find work.
• Self-employed workers whose incomes have decreased.
• Former full-time employees who have accepted short-term contracts, without benefits, and at a fraction of their former salaries.
• Would-be workers who are returning to school and taking on additional debt in the hopes that advanced degrees will improve their employment opportunities.

When the “under-employed” and the “discouraged” ARE INCLUDED, the unemployment rate DOUBLES to 16.6%. The BLS began tracking this alternative measure—known as the U-6 for its department classification—in 1995 after economists lobbied for a method comparable to the way Japan, Canada and Western Europe count their unemployed.

In fact, Ed Luce of the Financial Times noted that, “According to government statistics, if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11 percent.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-the-real-unemployment-rate-is-11-percent/2011/12/12/gIQAuctPpO_blog.html

Remember that the current unemployment rate is NOT based on “how many people don’t have jobs?”, but rather “how many people don’t have jobs and are actively looking for them?” Let’s say you’ve searched unsuccessfully for five months and exhausted every job listing in your area. Discouraged, you stop looking, at least for the moment. According to U.S. government statistics, you’re no longer unemployed. Umm………congratulations?

Applying this same government logic, perhaps all unemployed persons should be shot (not killed, just wounded) which would allow BLS bureaucrats re-categorize them as “disabled” and thus reduce unemployment to zero. And then…maybe we can all ride our unicorns to visit the rainbow fairies in magic lollipop land…

Since 2007, the percent of the U.S. population that either has a job or is actively looking for one has fallen from 62.7% to 58.5%. Those percentages represent millions of workers who have left the workforce—but NOT because they are sick or old or infirm. This is precisely what Luce’s calculation is based upon–the workers who are unable to find employment and are no longer looking. If 62.7% of the country were still counted as part of the workforce, unemployment would be 11%. In that sense, the real unemployment rate—the apples-to-apples unemployment rate—is likely 11%. And the real un- and under-employed rate—the so-called “U6”—is nearly 20%.

That broader unemployment rate, or U-6, is up from 16.4% a year ago and from 9.7% in May 2008. It was 7.1% in May 2000.

Economist Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, believes that the U-6 number has risen dramatically, “…because a lot of people have been put on short hours and there are a lot of discouraged workers.”

According to Burtless, shortened work hours and large numbers of permanently laid-off workers exemplify a few of the differences between this recession and previous recessions during the early 1980s and 1990s:

• “Some people have lost their income altogether, and others have seen a drop in hours even if they remain employed. It was a double whammy for labor income.”

Another difference in this recession—and a likely reason for the high number of discouraged job seekers—is the number of people who have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks. The Wall Street Journal reports that 7 million Americans have been looking for work for 27 weeks or more, and the majority of them—4.7 million—have been out of work for a year or more. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703961204575280753219161046.html

The only sector of the economy that is really booming is government. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)—on average—federal workers are compensated 16% MORE THAN than their counterparts in the private-sector.

For all but the most educated, a government job pays quite well…

• Federal workers with a high school degree earned 21% more than the private sector.
• Federal workers with a college degree earned 21% more than the private sector.
• Federal workers with an advanced degree earned 23% less than the private sector.

And don’t forget the generous benefit package…

• Federal workers with a high school degree received benefits 72% higher than the private sector.
• Federal workers with a college degree received benefits 46% higher than the private sector.
• Federal workers with an advanced degree received benefits equal to the private sector.

 Well…at least someone has a job…

To see the national debt statistically visit http://www.usdebtclock.org/

To see the national debt visually visit http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/us_debt/us_debt.html

WARNING: Viewing these facts may cause swelling of the face, lips, tongue, and/or throat, difficulty breathing or swallowing, anemia, decreased levels of potassium or sodium, dizziness, excessive bleeding, facial flushing, fainting, rapid heartbeat, heart attack, hypertension, hypotension, low blood cell counts, palpitations, thrombosis, bone loss, amnesia, vertigo, seizures, speech disorder, stroke, abdominal pain, colitis, constipation, diarrhea, dry mouth, dyspepsia, intestinal or rectal bleeding, nausea, indigestion, vomiting, acute or chronic kidney failure, hepatitis, jaundice, liver damage, cough, lower respiratory infection, pulmonary edema, pulmonary thrombosis, dyspnea, sore throat, aggression, agitation, anxiety, confusion, depression, hallucinations, hostility, hyperactivity, insomnia, back pain, leg cramps, tremors, spasms, drowsiness, swelling of legs or feet, diabetes mellitus, hair loss, frequent urination, hyperglycemia, ketoacidosis, loss of appetite, pancreatitis, urinary tract infections, weight gain or loss, angina, headache, heartburn, joint pain, blindness, blurred or colored vision, tinnitus, itching, skin rash, or sweating……….or not.

Though the sheer size of our national debt makes it difficult to grasp, perhaps the following illustration will help:

NOTE: All dollar amounts are expressed in 2010 USD

In 2010, the annual interest on the U.S. national debt was $414 billion. [1]

To put that number in perspective, remember that the ANNUAL INTEREST on the U.S. national debt is MORE than the ENTIRE GDP of the following countries: [2]

Saudi Arabia ($400.2 billion)… Austria ($361.5 billion)… Norway ($346.5 billion)… Denmark ($294.2 billion)… Republic of South Africa ($282.6 billion)… Argentina ($265.5 billion)… Iran ($253.8 billion)… Greece ($252.1 billion)… Thailand ($246.7 billion)… Hong Kong ($231.8 billion)… Finland ($227.4 billion)… Ireland ($220.9 billion)… Portugal ($195.7 billion)… Malaysia ($184.5 billion)… Venezuela ($181.9 billion)… Singapore ($173.9 billion)… United Arab Emirates ($173.4 billion)… Israel ($165.5 billion)… Colombia ($165.4 billion)… Pakistan ($163.5 billion)… Czech Republic ($162.6 billion)… Chile ($158.4 billion)… Philippines ($146.7 billion)… Egypt ($145.9 billion)… Nigeria ($138.2 billion)… Algeria ($127.7 billion)… Romania ($127 billion)… Peru ($122.6 billion)… New Zealand ($117.5 billion)… Hungary ($114.4 billion)… Iraq ($99.3 billion)… Ukraine ($98.5 billion)… Kuwait ($93.6 billion)… Puerto Rico ($87.5 billion)… Kazakhstan ($84.6 billion)… Vietnam ($81 billion)… Bangladesh ($80 billion)… Morocco ($74.2 billion)… Zaire ($71.2 billion)… Slovakia ($67.7 billion)… Angola ($50.7 billion)… Libya ($54.2 billion)… Burma Myanmar ($54 billion)… Serbia ($53.2 billion)… Belarus ($52.3 billion)… Cuba ($47.4 billion)… Sudan ($45.9 billion)… Ecuador ($45.1 billion)… Croatia ($43.8 billion)… Luxembourg ($43 billion)… Oman ($42.9 billion)… Guatemala ($42.2 billion)… Slovenia ($41.3 billion)… Dominican Republic ($40.6 billion)… Tunisia ($38.8 billion)… Syria ($37.5 billion)… Sri Lanka ($34.1 billion)… Bulgaria ($33.7 billion)… Azerbaijan ($32.8 billion)… Lebanon ($31.3 billion)… Lithuania ($29.3 billion)… Uruguay ($27.1 billion)… Kenya ($26.6 billion)… Costa Rica ($25.7 billion)… Panama ($24.6 billion)… Cameroon ($21.5 billion)… Cyprus ($20.8 billion)… El Salvador ($20.4 billion)… Cote D’Ivoire ($20.1 billion)… Uzbekistan ($19.7 billion)… Afghanistan ($19.5 billion)… Bahrain ($18.7 billion)… Jordan ($18.3 billion)… Macau ($18 billion)… Albania ($17.4 billion)… Ethiopia ($16.9 billion)… Iceland ($16.7 billion)… Latvia ($16.6 billion)… Tanzania ($16.5 billion)… Trinidad & Tobago ($16.1 billion)… Ghana ($15.2 billion)… Estonia ($14.7 billion)… Turkmenistan ($14.3 billion)… Uganda ($14.0 billion)… Zambia ($13.2 billion)… Bolivia ($12.7 billion)… Bosnia Herzegovina ($12.5 billion)… Paraguay ($11.6 billion)… Botswana ($10.8 billion)… Senegal ($10.7 billion)… Honduras ($10.6 billion)… Gabon ($10.4billion)… Brunei ($10.2 billion)… Nepal ($9.9 billion)… Jamaica ($9.8 billion)… Mozambique ($9.2 billion)… Georgia ($9.1 billion)… Cambodia ($8.1 billion)… Mauritius ($7.9 billion)… French Polynesia ($7.8 billion)… Mali ($7.6 billion)… Namibia ($7.6 billion)… Burkina ($7.6 billion)… Macedonia ($7.4 billion)… Rwanda ($7.3 billion)… New Caledonia ($7.2 billion)… Malta & Gozo ($7.1 billion)… Bahamas ($6.9 billion)… Papua New Guinea ($6.9 billion)… Madagascar ($6.8 billion)… Armenia ($6.6 billion)… Republic of Congo ($6.5 billion)… Chad ($6.5 billion)… Benin ($5.9 billion)… Yemen ($5.9 billion)… Nicaragua ($5.9 billion)… Haiti ($5.1 billion)… West Bank ($4.9 billion)… Niger ($4.7 billion)… Laos ($4.7 billion)… Malawi ($4.2 billion)… Equatorial Guinea ($4.1 billion)… Guinea ($4.0 billion)… Bermuda ($3.7 billion)… Tajikistan ($3.7 billion)… Moldova ($3.6 billion)… Barbados ($3.4 billion)… Swaziland ($3.2 billion)… Mongolia ($3.2 billion)… Fiji ($3.1 billion)… Kyrgyzstan ($3.1 billion)… Togo ($2.9 billion)… Mauritania ($2.4 billion)… Central African Republic ($1.8 billion)… Suriname ($1.7 billion)… Bhutan ($1.7 billion)… Cape Verde Islands ($1.6 billion)… Belize ($1.3 billion)… Lesotho ($1.3 billion)… Sierra Leone ($1.3 billion)… Liberia ($1.2 billion)…

Or put another way, the DAILY INTEREST on the U.S. national debt is MORE than the ENTIRE GDP of the following countries:

Antigua & Barbuda ($1.1 billion)… Maldives Islands ($1.1 billion)… Eritrea ($1.1 billion)… St. Lucia ($1.0 billion)… Burundi ($970 million)… Djibouti ($970 million)… Guyana ($960 million)… Seychelles ($764 million)… St. Vincent & the Grenadines ($576 million)… Grenada ($553 million)… St. Kitts & Nevis ($531 million)… Vanuatu New Hebrides ($476 million)… Samoa ($454 million)… Gambia ($454 million)… Comoros Islands ($432 million)… Guinea Bissau ($410 million)… Zimbabwe ($410 million)… Solomon Islands ($398 million)… Dominica ($365 million)… Tonga ($266 million)… Federated States of Micronesia ($255 million)… Palau ($188 million)… Marshall Islands ($144 million)… Sao Tome & Principe ($99.6 million)… Kiribati & Tuvalu Gilbert Islands ($99.6 million).

Confronted by the sheer enormity this fiscal mismanagement, the stunning ignorance guiding U.S. economic policy becomes all the more difficult to swallow. Federal bureaucrats naïvely suggest that the government should simply, “Tax the rich back into the stone age!” But how would that work out?

According to Forbes, the top ten richest people in America have a combined personal net worth of  $270.8 billion: [3]

Bill Gates ($54 billion)… Warren Buffett ($45 billion)… Larry Ellison ($27 billion)… Christy Walton & family ($24 billion)… Charles Koch ($21.5 billion)… David Koch ($21.5 billion)… Jim Walton ($20.1 billion)… Alice Walton ($20 billion)… S. Robson Walton ($19.7 billion)… Michael Bloomberg ($18 billion).

Even if the IRS confiscated every last penny of their entire net worth, the federal government could only fund itself for 5.6 days (at $48 billion per day). Then what? Fortunately for America, the residents of the land of rainbows, lollipops, and unicorns have a solution to all of our economic woes by demanding that we force the rich to pay their “fair” share:

NOTE: All income thresholds have been adjusted for inflation and are expressed in 2010 USD.

In 1980…

• There were 93,239,000 federal individual income tax returns filed.
• The top 1% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $210,402—paid 19% of all taxes.
• The top 5% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $114,345—paid 37% of all taxes.
• The top 10% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $91,571—paid 49% of all taxes.
• The top 50% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $33,777—paid 93% of all taxes.
• The bottom 50% of taxpayers paid only 7% of all taxes.

In 1985…

• There were 100,625,000 federal individual income tax returns filed.
• The top 1% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $216,153—paid 22% of all taxes.
• The top 5% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $117,703—paid 39% of all taxes.
• The top 10% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $92,595—paid 51% of all taxes.
• The top 50% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $33,358—paid 93% of all taxes.
• The bottom 50% of taxpayers paid only 7% of all taxes.

NOTE: The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of Adjusted Gross Income (AGI).

In 1990…

• There were 112,812,000 federal individual income tax returns filed.
• The top 1% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $275,691—paid 25% of all taxes.
• The top 5% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $130,194—paid 44% of all taxes.
• The top 10% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $99,274—paid 55% of all taxes.
• The top 50% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $32,550—paid 94% of all taxes.
• The bottom 50% of taxpayers paid only 6% of all taxes.

In 1995…

• There were 117,274,000 federal individual income tax returns filed.
• The top 1% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $296,612—paid 30% of all taxes.
• The top 5% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $136,292—paid 49% of all taxes.
• The top 10% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $102,117—paid 61% of all taxes.
• The top 50% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $31,649—paid 95% of all taxes.
• The bottom 50% of taxpayers paid only 5% of all taxes.

In 2000…

• There were 128,227,000 federal individual income tax returns filed.
• The top 1% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $392,872—paid 37% of all taxes.
• The top 5% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $160,844—paid 56% of all taxes.
• The top 10% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $115,484—paid 67% of all taxes.
• The top 50% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $34,694—paid 96% of all taxes.
• The bottom 50% of taxpayers paid only 4% of all taxes.

In 2005…

• There were 132,612,000 federal individual income tax returns filed.
• The top 1% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $403,601—paid 39% of all taxes.
• The top 5% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $160,799—paid 60% of all taxes.
• The top 10% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $115,009—paid 70% of all taxes.
• The top 50% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $34,179—paid 97% of all taxes.
• The bottom 50% of taxpayers paid only 3% of all taxes.

In 2008…

• There were 139,961,000 federal individual income tax returns filed.
• The top 1% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $384,894—paid 38% of all taxes.
• The top 5% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $161,524—paid 59% of all taxes.
• The top 10% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $115,157—paid 70% of all taxes.
• The top 50% of taxpayers—or those earning at least $33,442—paid 97% of all taxes.
• The bottom 50% of taxpayers paid only 3% of all taxes.

To tax a citizen’s earnings and savings—for other than defensive purposes—is to reduce both their capacity and their incentive to care for themselves and for others. Furthermore, this enslaves and debases the citizen who is then forced to rely upon the taxing power of government for their livelihood.

Government is intrinsically noncreative and can distribute ONLY what it first taxes away from the productive efforts of individuals. It is for this reason that statists are such fervent acolytes of coercion and accept without question the dogma that government is the answer to every problem.

It is long past time for federal bureaucrats and the politicians who appoint them to put on their “big boy” pants and start acting like the Framers of the Constitution intended. (And it wouldn’t hurt if they took some Economics 101 classes).

The Framers planted and nurtured these early abolitionist seeds from which the recognition of black equality and the eventual end of slavery would later blossom. This fact was further clarified by Bishop Richard Allen, a former slave from Pennsylvania who was later freed after converting his master to Christianity. Allen, a close friend of Benjamin Rush and several other anti-slavery Framers, later founded the first fully independent black denomination in the United States, the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church in 1816.

In an early address “To the People of Color,” he explained:

RICHARD ALLEN (1764-1831)… Founder of the AME Church (1816)… “Conductor” of the Underground Railroad (1797-1831)

“Many of the white people have been instruments in the hands of God for our good, even such as have held us in captivity, [and] are now pleading our cause [emancipation] with earnestness and zeal.” [1]

While the Framers made great strides towards ending the institution of slavery, their efforts would not reach fruition until generations later. Yet, somehow in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, charges persist that the Framers failed to practically recognize that “all men are created equal.” [2]

In fact, politically correct revisionists have even claimed that the U.S. Constitution proves the Framers considered blacks to be “only three-fifths of a person.” This assertion is yet another blatant falsehood. The three-fifths clause was NOT a measurement of human worth; rather, it was an anti-slavery provision designed to limit the political power of Southern slaveholders by denying them additional representatives in Congress. Moreover, it also provided the South with a significant incentive to emancipate their slaves, since these Freedmen would then count as “five-fifths” of a person (for the purposes of representation).

Once emancipated, these former slaves would have given the South additional representation and greater legislative power. Consequently, (since Freedmen often outnumbered whites in the southern states) their presence would cripple any attempts by “pro-slaveryites” to regain political power. (NOTE: Free blacks already had the right to vote in several northern states and were not affected by the three-fifths compromise).

As the always eloquent Gouverneur Morris sarcastically inquired of the Southern delegates:

GOUVERNEUR MORRIS (1752-1816)… Founding Father… Signatory Articles of Confederation & U.S. Constitution… Delegate to Continental Congress [NY] (1778)… Delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 [PA]… U.S. Minister to France (1792-1794)… U.S. Senator [NY] (1800-1803)

“Are they [slaves] admitted as citizens? Then why are they not admitted on an equality with White Citizens? Are they admitted as property? Then why is not other property admitted to the computation?” [3]

Elbridge Gerry added his own biting retort to the Southerners:

ELBRIDGE GERRY (1744-1814)… Founding Father… Signatory Declaration of Independence & Articles of Confederation… Delegate to Continental Congress [MA] (1776-1780, 1783-1785)… Delegate to Constitutional Convention of 1787 [MA]… U.S. Representative [MA] (1789-1793)… Governor [MA] (1810-1812)… U.S. Vice President [5th] (1813-1814)

“If Georgians can count their slaves, can New Englanders count their cattle?” [4]

Based on James Madison’s meticulous notes of the Constitutional Convention, two prominent professors offer further clarification on the true meaning of the three-fifths clause:

DR. THOMAS G. WEST (1945- )… Professor of Politics at the University of Dallas (1974- )… Director & Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute… B.A. Cornell University (1967)… U.S. Army Lieutenant (1969-1970)… Ph.D. Claremont Graduate University (1974)… Author of Vindicating the Founders: Race, Sex, Class, and Justice in the Origins of America (1997)

“[T]he Constitution allowed Southern States to count three-fifths of their slaves toward the population that would determine numbers of representatives in the federal legislature. This clause is often singled out today as a sign of black dehumanization: they are only three-fifths human. But the provision applied to slaves, not blacks. That meant that free blacks—and there were many, North as well as South—counted the same as whites.” [5]

[In the interest of full disclosure to Republican and Democrat readers, both Drs. Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell are Libertarians].

DR. WALTER E. WILLIAMS (1936- )… B.A., M.A., & Ph.D. Economics UCLA… Doctor of Humane Letters Virginia Union University, Grove City College… Doctor of Laws from Washington & Jefferson College… John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics (1980- )… Author of over 150 publications which have been published journals Economic Inquiry, American Economic Review, Georgia Law Review, Journal of Labor Economics, Social Science Quarterly, Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy, Newsweek, Ideas on Liberty, National Review, Reader’s Digest, Cato Journal, Policy Review… Author of America: A Minority Viewpoint; The State Against Blacks (PBS documentary “Good Intentions”); All It Takes Is Guts; South Africa’s War Against Capitalism; Do the Right Thing: The People’s Economist Speaks; More Liberty Means Less Government… Author of nationally syndicated weekly column published by 140 newspapers/web sites… Member of board of directors at Grove City College, Reason Foundation, Hoover Institution… Member of advisory boards at Cato Institute, Landmark Legal Foundation, Institute of Economic Affairs, Heritage Foundation… Fellowships and awards from Foundation for Economic Education Adam Smith Award, Hoover Institution National Fellow, Ford Foundation Fellow, Valley Forge Freedoms Foundation George Washington Medal of Honor, Veterans of Foreign Wars U.S. News Media Award, Adam Smith Award, California State University Distinguished Alumnus Award, George Mason University Faculty Member of the Year, Alpha Kappa Psi Award.

“It was slavery’s opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South.” [6]

Why do revisionists so often and so broadly misrepresent the three-fifths clause? Dr. Williams continued:

“Politicians, news media, college professors, and leftists of other stripes are selling us lies and propaganda. To lay the groundwork for their increasingly successful attack on our Constitution, they must demean and criticize its authors. As Senator Joe Biden [D-DE] demonstrated during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the framers’ ideas about natural law must be trivialized or they must be seen as racists.” [7]

Having grown up in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania’s Richard Allen housing projects (his neighbors included a young Bill Cosby), Dr. Williams developed an insightful perspective on these issues that present some troubling implications for our modern society. He further clarifies: [8]

“So many Americans graduate high school and college having learned what to think as opposed to acquiring the tools of critical, independent thinking. Likewise, they have learned little about our nation’s history. As such, they fall prey to the rhetoric of political charlatans and quacks.

“Now let’s turn to history. Dr. Condoleezza Rice said, in an October 2003 speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, ‘When the Founding Fathers said ‘We the People,’ they did not mean me. My ancestors were considered three-fifths of a person.’ Though not Dr. Rice’s intention, this common misunderstanding of history is often used to discredit the great men who founded our nation—without telling the whole story.

“The Founding Fathers struggled over the issue of slavery. George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, Patrick Henry and others were highly critical of slavery, describing it as a ‘lamentable evil,’ ‘disease of ignorance,’ ‘oppressive dominion’ and ‘an inconsistency not to be excused.’

“The delegates at the 1787 Philadelphia Constitutional Convention had to negotiate many contentious deal-breaking issues. Slavery was one of those issues. The Southern states made it clear that they wouldn’t vote to ratify the Constitution if it abolished slavery or ended the slave trade. Delegates from slave states wanted slaves counted as whole persons for the purposes of determining representation in Congress. That would have given the South greater political power.

“Delegate James Wilson offered a compromise whereby slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of determining the number of representatives a state had in the House of Representatives. The corresponding compromise established 1808 as the year the international slave trade would be abolished.

“There’s little question that slavery is an abomination and a gross violation of human rights, but the Founders had to decide whether there’d be a Union. Had morality been their sole guide, the Constitution would have never been ratified and a Union would not have been created.

“One question we might ask those who condemn the Founders is whether black Americans would be better off or worse off today with the Northern states having gone their way and the Southern states having gone theirs, and as a consequence no U.S. Constitution and no Union.

“Americans’ ignorance of our history and inability to think critically has provided considerable ammunition for those who want to divide us in pursuit of their agenda. I don’t usually buy into conspiracy theories, but it’s tempting to think America’s charlatans, quacks, and demagogues are in cahoots with the teaching establishments at our government schools and colleges to dumb down the nation.”

DR. THOMAS SOWELL (1930- ) B.A. Economics, magna cum laude Harvard College (1958), M.A. Economics Columbia University (1959), Ph.D. Economics University of Chicago (1968)… Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (1980- )… Professor of Economics at UCLA (1974-1980), Visiting Professor of Economics at Amherst College (1977), Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (1976-1977), Project Director, The Urban Institute (1972-1974), Associate Professor of Economics at UCLA (1970-1972), Associate Professor of Economics at Brandeis University (1969-1970), Assistant Professor of Economics at Cornell University (1965-1969), Economic Analyst at AT&T (1964-1965), Lecturer in Economics at Howard University (1963-1964), Instructor in Economics at Rutgers University (1962-1963), Labor Economist at U.S. Department of Labor (1961-1962)… Author of On Classical Economics (2006); Black Rednecks and White Liberals (2005); The Quest for Cosmic Justice (1999); Conquests and Cultures (1998); Migrations and Cultures (1996); The Vision of the Anointed (1995); Race and Culture: A World View (1994); A Conflict of Visions (1987); Ethnic America (1981); Knowledge and Decisions (1980); Say’s Law: An Historical Analysis (1972).

Dr. Sowell—himself a product of Harlem, New York—expands on these modern suppositions and provides valuable insight into the factors destroying opportunities for black success, particularly in the inner cities: [9]

“If the share of the black vote that goes to the Democrats ever falls to 70 percent, it may be virtually impossible for the Democrats to win the White House or Congress, because they have long ago lost the white male vote and their support among other groups is eroding. Against that background, it becomes possible to understand their desperate efforts to keep blacks paranoid, not only about Republicans but about American society in general.

“Liberal Democrats, especially, must keep blacks fearful of racism everywhere, including in an administration [2005] whose Cabinet includes people of Chinese, Japanese, Hispanic, and Jewish ancestry, and two consecutive black Secretaries of State. Blacks must be kept believing that their only hope lies with liberals.

“Not only must the present be distorted, so must the past—and any alternative view of the future must be nipped in the bud. That is why prominent minority figures that stray from the liberal plantation must be discredited, debased and, above all, kept from becoming federal judges.

“A thoughtful and highly intelligent member of the California Supreme Court like Justice Janice Rogers Brown [a potential appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court] must be smeared as a right-wing extremist, even though she received 76 percent of the vote in California, hardly a right-wing extremist state. But desperate politicians cannot let facts stand in their way.

“Least of all could they afford to let Janice Rogers Brown become a national figure on the federal bench. The things she says and does could lead other blacks to begin to think independently—and that in turn threatens the whole liberal house of cards. If a smear is what it takes to stop her that is what liberal politicians and the liberal media will use.

“It’s ‘not personal’ as they say when they smear someone. It doesn’t matter how outstanding or upstanding Justice Brown is. She is a threat to the power that means everything to liberal politicians. The Democrats’ dependence on blacks for vote’s means that they must keep blacks dependent on them.

“Black self-reliance would be almost as bad as blacks becoming Republicans, as far as liberal Democrats are concerned. All black progress in the past must be depicted as the result of liberal government programs and all hope of future progress must be depicted as dependent on the same liberalism. In reality, reductions in poverty among blacks and the rise of blacks into higher level occupations were both more pronounced in the years leading up to the civil rights legislation and welfare state policies of the 1960s than in the years that followed.

“Moreover, contrary to political myth, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But facts have never stopped politicians or ideologues before and show no signs of stopping them now.

“What blacks have achieved for themselves, without the help of liberals, is of no interest to liberals. Nothing illustrates this better than political reactions to academically successful black schools.

“Despite widespread concerns expressed about the abysmal educational performances of most black schools, there is remarkably little interest in those relatively few black schools which have met or exceeded national standards. Anyone who is serious about the advancement of blacks would want to know what is going on in those ghetto schools whose students have reading and math scores above the national average, when so many other ghetto schools are miles behind in both subjects. But virtually all the studies of such schools have been done by conservatives, while liberals have been strangely silent.

“Achievement is not what liberalism is about. Victimhood and dependency are.

“Black educational achievements are a special inconvenience for liberals because those achievements have usually been a result of methods and practices that go directly counter to prevailing theories in liberal educational circles and are anathema to the teachers’ unions that are key supporters of the Democratic Party.

“Many things that would advance blacks would not advance the liberal agenda. That is why the time is long overdue for the two to come to a parting of the ways.”

Our country desperately needs to dissolve the distinctions of race and remember that WE are ALL Americans. Principles must replace partisan talking-points and traditional right/left party alliances if we are to transcend the bigotry and discrimination fostered by political correctness, multiculturalism, and social[ized] justice.

At the end of the day, the most important question to answer is simply this: Has a sense of special grievance ever helped advance any people in any nation for any reason—or has what happened in centuries past been exploited by historical revisionists as a distraction to incite counterproductive divisiveness? The “elites” are  relentless in their attempts to divide Americans against Americans using any available means, and one of their most effective weapons has been to play the victim card—any color will do.

Note these additional examples of the anti-slavery positions resolutely embraced by several influential American figures:

JOHN WITHERSPOON (1723-1794)… Founding Father… Signatory Declaration of Independence & Articles of Confederation… President of Princeton University [6th] (1768-1794)… Delegate to Continental Congress [NJ] (1776-1782)

“[I]t is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others [slaves]…and take away their liberty by no better right than superior force.” [1]

GEORGE MASON (1725-1792)… Founding Father… “Co-Father of the Bill of Rights”… Delegate to Constitutional Convention of 1787 [VA]

“As much as I value a union of all the States, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade [slavery].” [2]

JOHN DICKINSON (1732-1808)… Founding Father… Signatory Articles of Confederation & U.S. Constitution… Delegate to Continental Congress [PA] (1774-1776)… Delegate to Continental Congress [DE] (1779-1781)… Governor [DE] (1781-1782)… Governor [PA] (1782-1785)… Delegate to Constitutional Convention of 1787 [PA]

“As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they may build up the system of the government on the broad, strong, and sound principles of freedom. Curse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery].” [3]

RICHARD HENRY LEE (1732-1794)… Founding Father… Signatory Declaration of Independence & Articles of Confederation… President of Continental Congress [12th] (1784-1785)… U.S. Senator [VA] (1789-1792)

“Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts…by agreeing to this duty.” [4]

PATRICK HENRY (1736-1799)… Founding Father… Governor [VA] [1st & 6th] (1776-1779) (1784-1786)… Delegate to Constitutional Convention [VA] (1788)

“I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we do is to improve it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery.” [5]

CHARLES CARROLL of CARROLLTON (1737-1832)… Founding Father… Signatory Declaration of Independence… U.S. Senator [MD] (1789-1792)

“[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil.” [6]

JOSEPH REED (1741-1785)… Founding Father… Signatory Articles of Confederation… Adjutant-General Continental Army… Governor [PA] (1778-1781)… Delegate to Continental Congress [PA] (1778-?)

“Honored will that State be in the annals of history which shall first abolish this violation of the rights of mankind [slavery].” [7]

OLIVER ELLSWORTH (1745-1807)… U.S. Senator [CT] (1789-1796)… Delegate to Constitutional Convention of 1787 [CT]… Chief Justice of U.S. Supreme Court [3rd] (1796-1800)

“All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves.” [8]

BENJAMIN RUSH (1746-1813)… Founding Father… Signatory Declaration of Independence… Delegate to 1st Continental Congress [PA] (1774)… Treasurer of U.S. Mint (1797-1813)… Delegate to Constitutional Convention [PA]

“Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity… It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is a usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men.” [9]

LUTHER MARTIN (1748-1826)… Founding Father… Delegate to Constitutional Convention of 1787 [MD]… State Attorney General [MD] (1818-1822)

“[I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave-trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master.” [10]

JAMES WILSON (1742-1798)… Founding Father… Signatory Declaration of Independence & U.S. Constitution… Delegate to Continental Congress [PA] (1776-1777)… Delegate to Constitutional Convention of 1787 [PA]… Associate Justice of U.S. Supreme Court (1789-1798)

“Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law… The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all.”[11]

NOAH WEBSTER (1758-1843)… “Father of American Scholarship and Education”… Founder Connecticut Society for the Abolition of Slavery (1791)… Published An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828)

“Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery]—Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent…pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right.” [12]

Frederick Douglass, former slave and arguably America’s most important abolitionist, clearly believed that the Framers opposed slavery when he asserted:

“But I differ from those who charge this baseness on the framers of the Constitution of the United States. It is a slander upon their memory, at least, so I believe. There is not time now to argue the constitutional question at length—nor have I the ability to discuss it as it ought to be discussed. The subject has been handled with masterly power by Lysander Spooner, Esq., by William Goodell, by Samuel E. Sewall, Esq., and last, though not least, by Gerritt Smith, Esq. These gentlemen have, as I think, fully and clearly vindicated the Constitution from any design to support slavery for an hour… [L]et me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it.” [13]

Douglass makes a persuasive point since the Articles of Confederation (our nation’s first constitution) also made no mention of slavery. Under the Articles, congressional representation was organized with each state responsible for selecting its own representatives. For that reason, state population—which later became a critical issue for the future House of Representatives—was irrelevant. Furthermore, because the question of fugitive slaves and the idea of an abolitionist movement were issues almost unheard of as late as the 1780s, there is no mention of them in the Articles. The Fugitive Clause in Article 4 comes closest, but even that brief reference related to convicts not slaves.

Moreover, the Framers scrupulously avoided the words “slave” and “slavery” in the text of the U.S. Constitution. Instead, they used phrases like “importation of Persons” in Article 1, Section 9 for the slave trade, “other persons” in Article 1, Section 2, and “person held to service or labor” in Article 4, Section 2 for slaves. Not until the 13th Amendment (adopted 6 December 1865) was slavery specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The amendment employed the term to avoid any ambiguity as to exactly what the words were eliminating. Later, the 14th Amendment (adopted 9 July 1868) eliminated the euphemisms “other persons” and “three-fifths clause”.

Nevertheless, slavery remained a contentious issue for Congress to address. For that reason, a compromise was reached in Article 1, Section 9, which expressly limited Congress from prohibiting the “Importation” of slaves before 1808. However, after 1808 Congress immediately passed a law abolishing the slave trade, effective 1 January 1808.

In addition to fighting these political battles, several prominent Framers were also members of anti-slavery societies and included: Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, and Zephaniah Swift, et. al. Furthermore, based in part on the efforts of these Framers, the constitutions of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts expressly abolished slavery in 1780; [14] Connecticut and Rhode Island followed in 1784; [15] Vermont in 1786; [16] New Hampshire in 1792; [17] New York in 1799; [18] and finally, New Jersey in 1804. [19]

Moreover, the reason that Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery vis-à-vis congressional mandate (Northwest Ordinance of 1787), was largely due to the efforts of Constitutional Convention delegate, Rufus King. [20] The Ordinance, signed into law by President George Washington, [21] prohibited slavery in those territories. [22] Unsurprisingly, Washington signed the law and subsequently declared:

“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].” [23]

Look for the next installment, “Mental Slavery?”, Part 4

Moreover, until the Revolutionary Era, no serious effort had EVER been undertaken to dismantle the vile institution of slavery. Consider the following:

JOHN JAY (1745-1829)… Founding Father… President of Continental Congress (1778-1779)… U.S. Ambassador to Spain (1779-1782)… Co-author of the Federalist Papers (1788)… Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court [1st] (1789-1795)… Governor [NY] (1795-1801)

“Prior to the great Revolution, the great majority…of our people had been so long accustomed to the practice and convenience of having slaves that very few among them even doubted the propriety and rectitude of it.” [1]

“It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.” [2]

“That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent, as well as unjust and perhaps impious, part.” [3]

Contrary to what is widely taught in public high school and college classrooms, most of the Framers despised slavery and actively sought its demise. The Revolution represented a turning point in colonial attitudes—and it was the Framers who contributed significantly to that shift. Indeed, many of the Framers vigorously railed against England’s forceful imposition of slavery upon the original 13 colonies. Moreover, during the pre-Revolutionary War era, Thomas Jefferson was among the most vehement critics of the British system of slavery:

THOMAS JEFFERSON (1743-1826)… Founding Father… Author of the Declaration of Independence… Delegate to 2nd Continental Congress [VA] (1775-1776)… Governor [VA] (1779-1781)…Delegate to Congress of the Confederation [VA] (1783-1784)… U.S. Ambassador to France (1785-1789)…U.S. Secretary of State [1st] (1790-1793)… U.S. Vice President [2nd] (1797-1801)… U.S. President [3rd] (1801-1809)

“He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither… Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [King George III opposed efforts to prohibit the slave trade].” [4]

Jefferson’s opposition to the institution of slavery remained steadfast after America won her freedom from England:

“The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other… And with what execration [curse] should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other… And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.” [5]

HENRY LAURENS (1724-1792)… Founding Father… Signatory Articles of Confederation… Delegate to 2nd Continental Congress [SC] (1776)… President of 2nd Continental Congress (1777)… U.S. Ambassador to Holland (1779-1780)… Delegate to Constitutional Convention [SC] (1788):

“I abhor slavery. I was born in a country where slavery had been established by British Kings and Parliaments as well as by the laws of the country ages before my existence… In former days there was no combating the prejudices of men supported by interest; the day, I hope, is approaching when, from principles of gratitude as well as justice, every man will strive to be foremost in showing his readiness to comply with the Golden Rule.” [6]

In fact, several colonial attempts to thwart slavery had met with determined resistance from the British Parliament:

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN (1706-1790)… Founding Father… Signatory Declaration of Independence & U.S. Constitution… U.S. Postmaster General [1st] (1775-1776)… U.S. Ambassador to France (1778-1785)… U.S. Ambassador to Sweden (1782-1783)… Governor [PA] (1785-1788):

“…a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even he Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed.” [7]

Even before the Continental Congress (1774-1789) was convened, Pennsylvania Quakers became the first whites to condemn slavery in either the American colonies or Europe, and later played a vital role in the abolitionist movement. Quakers denounced slavery as early as 1688, when four German Quakers organized a protest in Pennsylvania. Influential leaders John Woolman and Anthony Benezet likewise protested against slavery and demanded that Quaker society sever ties with the slave trade. [8]

In 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America’s first antislavery society, while John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. When William Livingston heard of Jay’s society, he promptly wrote them:

WILLIAM LIVINGSTON (1723-1790)… Founding Father… Signatory U.S. Constitution… Delegate to Continental Congress [NJ] (1774-1776)… Governor [NJ] (1776-1790)… Delegate to Constitutional Convention [NJ] (1787)

“I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and… I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity… May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.” [9]

In a separate correspondence to his friend James Pemberton, Livingston added these sentiments:

“I hope we shall at last, and if it so please God I hope it may be during my life time, see this cursed thing [slavery] taken out… For my part, whether in a public station or a private capacity, I shall always be prompt to contribute my assistance towards effecting so desirable an event.” [10]

Several of the Framers who owned slaves as British citizens released them in the years following the separation of the 13 colonies from England (e.g., George Washington, John Dickinson, Caesar Rodney, William Livingston, George Wythe, John Randolph of Roanoke, et. al.). Furthermore, a number of Framers never owned ANY slaves. In the words of John Adams:

JOHN ADAMS (1735-1826)… Founding Father… Signatory Declaration of Independence… Delegate to 1st Continental Congress [MA] (1774)… Delegate to 2nd Continental Congress [MA] (1775-1778)… U.S. Ambassador to Holland (1782-1788)… U.S. Ambassador to England (1785-1788)… U.S. Vice President [1st] (1789-1797)… U.S. President [2nd] (1797-1801)

“[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known… [N]ever in my life did I own a slave.” [11]

Further confirmation that the Virginia Framers attempted to dismantle the foul institution of slavery was provided by John Quincy Adams (known as the “hell-hound of abolition” for his tireless crusade against slavery). Adams explained:

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS (1767-1848)… U.S. Ambassador to Holland (1794-1797)… U.S. Ambassador to Prussia (1797-1801)… U.S. Senator [MA] (1803-1808)… U.S. Ambassador to Russia (1809-1814)… U.S. Ambassador to England (1814-1817)… U.S. Secretary of State [8th] (1817-1825)… U.S. President [6th] (1825-1829)… U.S. Representative [MA] (1831-1848)

“The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [England] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves.” [12]

Although Jefferson personally introduced a bill designed to abolish slavery, [13] it is important to note that opposition to the institution was not unanimous among the Southern Framers. According to testimony from Virginians James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Rutledge, it was the Framers from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia who were the strongest proponents of slavery.[14]

However, despite the pro-slavery sentiments of those States, the clear majority of Framers detested the evil institution. For instance, on one occasion, several Southern pro-slavery advocates invoked the Bible in support of slavery, which prompted this response from Elias Boudinot:

ELIAS BOUDINOT (1740-1821)… Founding Father… State Assemblyman [NJ] (1775)… Delegate to 2nd Continental Congress (1777-1778, 1781-1783)… President of Continental Congress (1782-1783)… U.S. Representative [NJ] (1789-1795)… Director of U.S. Mint (1795-1805)

“[E]ven the sacred Scriptures had been quoted to justify this iniquitous traffic [slavery]. It is true that the Egyptians held the Israelites in bondage for four hundred years…but…gentlemen cannot forget the consequences that followed: they were delivered by a strong hand and stretched-out arm and it ought to be remembered that the Almighty Power that accomplished their deliverance is the same yesterday, today, and for ever.” [15]

Look for the next installment, “Mental Slavery?”, Part 3

“But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than to be ignorant.” [1] —H. L. Mencken (1880 – 1956)

It is no secret that America’s public school system is failing—badly. Learning “how to think” has been replaced by “what to think.” Education has been replaced by indoctrination and the freedom to discuss important issues of our time has become increasingly restricted. Education bureaucrats (“educrats”) continue to force-feed American students a steady diet of political correctness and trendy multiculturalism—for our own good of course. It would seem that our public high schools and universities have now adopted the motto: “We support your constitutional right to free thinking—as long as you agree with us.”

Consider for a moment, how difficult it is to even discuss an issue like slavery or race without being immediately labeled a “racist” or dismissed as someone who, “just wouldn’t understand.” Rather than engage in honest academic inquiry, educrats are so emotionally attached to their sacred agendas that they become completely unhinged whenever someone suggests that they actually examine such unfamiliar concepts as facts, evidence, or logic. Consequently, today’s politically correct, multicultural climate has caused far too many teachers to believe they are doing minority students “a favor” by cultivating past grievances and telling them how oppressed they are in the present—and how their future will be obstructed by white racism. These are the sorts of “friends” who do far more damage than enemies.

In fact, these same “friends” have forced minority public school students to ask themselves a simple question: “Why endure all the hard work, self-discipline, and self-denial required by a first-rate education if ‘The Man’ is going to prevent me from getting anywhere anyway?” Those who have been pushing this line for years are now suddenly surprised and dismayed to discover that large numbers of minority students across the country regard academic striving as “acting white.” A phenomenon that became a sadly familiar pattern at the public high school where I taught for three years.

On several occasions in the public school classroom, I noticed that minority students considered speaking correct English, or even observing rules of polite society, as “acting white.” Shockingly, white faculty members often cheered them on in their self-destructive behavior or at least “understood” them and defended their actions. In a supreme act of condescension, minorities have been effectively adopted as mascots by the educational establishment. Mascots serve to symbolize something for others, but the actual well-being of the mascot himself is seldom, if ever, a major concern.

Rather than empowering these students with knowledge of the truth, they are often forced to embrace the debilitating and degrading lessons of victimization. Tragically, since “victims” are—by definition—powerless, there is no hope for overcoming such a cruel lie. Gradually, these “victims” are drained of hope and initiative until they lack the confidence to pursue loftier endeavors.

Booker T. Washington, himself a former slave, repudiated such victimhood. He refused to allow himself to be crushed under the oppressive weight of racism and actually drew strength from the obstacles in his path. Truly, Booker T. Washington is an inspiration for ALL Americans irrespective of skin color:

“I have learned that success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has overcome while trying to succeed. Out of the hard and unusual struggle through which he is compelled to pass, he gets a strength, a confidence, that one misses whose pathway is comparatively smooth by reason of birth and race.” [2]

The true story—the largely untold story—is the inspiring history of blacks who overcame seemingly insurmountable odds to enjoy the opportunities provided by our incomparable (if flawed) United States of America. These individuals serve as an inspiration for ALL Americans because they embody OUR shared hopes and dreams. It is inexcusably tragic that advocates of victimhood negate the astonishing achievements of blacks who managed to thrive DESPITE slavery, discrimination, and prejudice. It is likewise unfortunate that those suffering from “white guilt” have formed an unholy alliance with race-baiters to perpetuate their agendas of grievance. In the end, the price of victimhood has proven extraordinarily steep, as our minority students find themselves imprisoned in an educational system that does little or nothing to explore and develop their vast, unfulfilled potential.

Several great Americans—whose insights remain shamefully forgotten—held views widely divergent from those advocated by today’s politically correct elites.

BOOKER T. WASHINGTON (1856-1915)…influential educator, author, orator, political leader, and former slave:

“There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs—partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs… There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well because as long as the disease holds out they not only have an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.” [3]

FREDERICK DOUGLASS (1818-1895)…prominent social reformer, orator, writer, statesman, and former slave:

“Everybody has asked the question…’What shall we do with the Negro?’ I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!” [4]

LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, M.D. (1933- )…chairman of the board of the National Health Museum in Atlanta, GA…chairman of the Sullivan Alliance to Transform America’s Health Professions…founding dean and President Emeritus of Morehouse School of Medicine…chairman of the President’s Commission on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (2002-2009)…co-chairman of the President’s Commission on HIV and AIDS (2001-2006):

“The tragic truth is that the language of ‘victimization’ is the true victimizer—a great crippler of young minds and spirits. To teach young people that their lives are governed—not by their own actions, but by socio-economic forces or government budgets or other mysterious and fiendish sources beyond their control—is to teach our children negativism, resignation, passivity, and despair.” [5]

THOMAS SOWELL (1930- )…influential author…Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution (Stanford University)…Professor of Economics at UCLA (1974-1980) and Amherst College (1977)…Project Director at The Urban Institute (1972-1974)…Associate Professor of Economics at Brandeis University (1969-1970)…Assistant Professor of Economics at Cornell University (1965- 1969)…Economic Analyst at AT&T (1964-1965)…Lecturer in Economics at Howard University (1963-1964)…Instructor in Economics at Douglass College, Rutgers University (1962-1963)…Labor Economist, U.S. Department of Labor (1961-1962):

“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were necessary for some people in some places. But making these things the cause of the rise of most blacks only betrays an ignorance of history.

“The most dramatic rise of blacks out of poverty occurred before the civil rights movement of the 1960s. [6] That’s right—before. But politicians, activists and the intelligentsia have spread so much propaganda that many Americans, black and white, are unaware of the facts.

“There is a lot of political mileage to be gotten by convincing blacks that they owe everything to the government and could not make it in this world otherwise. Dependency plus paranoia equals votes. But blacks made it in this world before the government paid them any attention.

“Nor has the economic rise of blacks been sped up by civil rights legislation. More blacks rose into professional ranks in the five years preceding passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five years after its passage. [7]

“What moved blacks up was a rapid increase in education. There was certainly discrimination but, in many fields that demanded higher levels of education, there were not that many blacks to discriminate against in the first place.” [8]

Slavery has always been among the most abhorrent and self-evident evils ever perpetrated in the annals of recorded human history. However, it is interesting to note that while slavery was common to ALL cultures, both civilized and uncivilized, only ONE civilization developed a moral revulsion against it—Western Civilization.

This fact begs several questions: what explains the tenacity with which educational elites indoctrinate captive audiences of students into the modern, politically correct view of slavery? Since slavery is a worldwide evil, why do these same elites maintain such a rigidly narrow view on the scope of its history? Why do so many elites use this evil–which has plagued mankind for thousands of years—to focus so completely upon the present-day uses of that historic evil? Ironically, it is often those most critical of a “Eurocentric” worldview who are themselves the most Eurocentric when it comes to assigning blame for the evils and failings of the human race. Clearly, scoring ideological points against Western civilization, or inducing guilt to coerce benefits from the white population today, are greatly enhanced by making enslavement appear to be a peculiarly white, or at least American, crime.

Before examining the relationship between American slavery and the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, it would be instructive to review the history of the institution itself.

• During the Middle Ages, Slavs (Eastern Europeans) were so widely used as slaves in both Europe and the Islamic world that the actual word for “slave” derived from the word for Slav—not only in English, but also in other European languages, as well as Arabic. [9]
• The people of the Balkans were enslaved by fellow Europeans, as well as by the peoples of the Middle East, for at least six centuries before the first Africans were brought to the Western Hemisphere. [10]
• At least one million Europeans were enslaved by Muslim pirates in North Africa from 1500 to 1800. [11]
• China, in centuries past, was described as “one of the most comprehensive markets for humans beings in the world.” [12]
• There were more slaves in India than in the entire Western Hemisphere. [13]
• More Africans were enslaved in the Islamic countries of the Middle East, Europe, and North Africa than in North America. [14]
• Even at the peak of Atlantic slave trade, Africans retained more slaves for themselves than they sent to the Western Hemisphere. [15]

For centuries—since the spread of slavery was limited by geography—people were enslaved because they were vulnerable and NOT because they were a particular race. In other words, Europeans enslaved Europeans, Africans enslaved Africans, Asians enslaved Asians, etc. Therefore, to make racism the driving force behind slavery is to make a historically recent factor the cause of an institution which originated thousands of years earlier. This enshrinement of racism as an over-arching causal factor aligns far more closely with current multicultural agendas than with the historical record. [16] Moreover, until the Revolutionary Era, no serious effort had EVER been undertaken to dismantle the vile institution of slavery.

Look for the next installment, “Mental Slavery?”, Part 2

[1] George Seldes, The Great Thoughts (New York, NY: Ballantine Books, 1985).

[2] Booker T. Washington, Up From Slavery (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1901).

[3] Booker T. Washington, My Larger Education: Being Chapters from My Experience (New York, NY: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1911), cited in “A Curriculum of Indoctrination,” Issues and Views (Fall 1992).

[4] Frederick Douglass, “What the Black Man Wants,” excerpt of speech to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, April 1865.

[5] E.J. Dionne, “Struggling to Find a Way to Teach Values”, Washington Post (9 July 1990), p. A-5.

[6] Daniel O. Price, Changing Characteristics of the Negro Population, U.S. Bureau of the Census (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969), pp. 223-225.

[7] Daniel O. Price, Changing Characteristics of the Negro Population, U.S. Bureau of the Census (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969), pp. 223-225.

[8] Thomas Sowell, “Silly Letters,” Jewish World Review (1 October 2003).

[9] Orlando Patterson, Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), pp. 406-407; cf. W. Montgomery Watt, The Influence of Islam on Medieval Europe (Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 1972), p. 19; cf. Bernard Lewis, Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Enquiry (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 11; cf. Daniel Evans, “Slave Coast of Europe,” Slavery and Abolition, Vol. 6, No. 1 (May 1985), p. 53, note 3; cf. William D. Phillips, Jr., Slavery From Roman Times to the Early Transatlantic Trade (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1985), p. 57.

[10] Daniel Evans, “Slave Coast of Europe,” Slavery and Abolition, Vol. 6, No. 1 (May 1985), p. 42.

[11] Robert C. Davis, Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary, and Italy, 1500-1800 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), p. 23.

[12] Martin A. Klein, ed., “Introduction: Modern European Expansion and Traditional Servitude in Africa and Asia,” Breaking the Chains: Slavery, Bondage, and Emancipation in Modern Africa and Asia (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993), p. 8; cf. R. W. Beachey, The Slave Trade of Eastern Africa (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1976), p. 137.

[13] Martin A. Klein, ed., “Introduction: Modern European Expansion and Traditional Servitude in Africa and Asia,” Breaking the Chains: Slavery, Bondage, and Emancipation in Modern Africa and Asia (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993), pp. 19-20; cf. David Brion Davis, The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1975), p. 63.

[14] William D. Phillips, Jr., Slavery From Roman Times to the Early Transatlantic Trade (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1985), p. 57.

[15] Martin A. Klein, ed., “Introduction: Modern European Expansion and Traditional Servitude in Africa and Asia,” Breaking the Chains: Slavery, Bondage, and Emancipation in Modern Africa and Asia (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993), p. 8; cf. R. W. Beachey, The Slave Trade of Eastern Africa (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), p. 137.

[16] Daniel J. Boorstein, The Americans: The National Experience (New York, NY: Random House, 1965), Vol. II, p. 203; cf. Thomas Sowell, Black Rednecks and White Liberals (San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2005), pp. 113-114.

Presidential approval ratings since 1950:[1]

• George W. Bush…was rated a HIGH of 90% and a LOW of 29%.
• George H. W. Bush…was rated a HIGH of 89% and a LOW of 29%.
• Harry S Truman…was rated a HIGH of 87% and a LOW of 23%.
• John F. Kennedy…was rated a HIGH of 83% and a LOW of 56%.
• Dwight D. Eisenhower…was rated a HIGH of 79% and a LOW of 48%.
• Lyndon B. Johnson…was rated a HIGH of 79% and a LOW of 35%
• Jimmy Carter…was rated a HIGH of 75% and a LOW of 28%.
• Bill Clinton…was rated a HIGH of 73% and a LOW of 37%.
• Gerald Ford…was rated a HIGH of 71% and a LOW of 37%.
• Ronald Reagan…was rated a HIGH of 68% and a LOW of 35%.
• Richard Nixon…was rated a HIGH of 67% and a LOW of 24%.

Over the years various surveys have attempted to determine the best and the worst of the American presidents. In 1948, eminent historian Arthur Schlesinger, Sr., asked 55 of his colleagues to rate each president according to one of five categories: (1) “great”, (2) “near great”, (3) “average”, (4) “below average”, or (5) “failure”.

The Schlesinger poll (1948) ranked:

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt
4. Woodrow Wilson
5. Thomas Jefferson

The Schlesinger poll (1962) ranked:

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt
4. Woodrow Wilson
5. Thomas Jefferson

The Murray-Blessing poll (1982) ranked:

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Theodore Roosevelt

The Chicago Tribune poll (1982) ranked:

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. Theodore Roosevelt
5. Thomas Jefferson

The Siena poll (1982) ranked:

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. Abraham Lincoln
4. George Washington
5. Theodore Roosevelt

The Siena poll (1990) ranked:

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Thomas Jefferson
4. George Washington
5. Theodore Roosevelt

The Siena poll (1994) ranked:

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Theodore Roosevelt
4. George Washington
5. Thomas Jefferson

The Ridings-McIver poll (1996) ranked:

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Theodore Roosevelt

The Schlesinger poll (1996) ranked:

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Andrew Jackson

The C-SPAN poll (1999) ranked:[2]

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. Theodore Roosevelt
5. Harry S. Truman

The Wall Street Journal poll (2000) ranked:

1. George Washington
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Theodore Roosevelt

The Siena poll (2002) ranked:

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Theodore Roosevelt
4. George Washington
5. Thomas Jefferson

The Wall Street Journal poll (2005) ranked:

1. George Washington
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Theodore Roosevelt

The Time poll (2008) ranked:

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Theodore Roosevelt

The C-SPAN poll (2009) ranked:

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt
4. Theodore Roosevelt
5. Harry S. Truman

The Siena poll (2010) ranked:

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt
2. Theodore Roosevelt
3. Abraham Lincoln
4. George Washington
5. Thomas Jefferson

Some surprising results from the above surveys…

Astoundingly, Franklin D. Roosevelt was ranked FIRST in the category of “economic management” by C-SPAN and averaged SECOND highest overall in the presidential rankings. Inexplicably, George Washington only managed to average THIRD highest overall in the presidential rankings.

Yet five years into FDR’s New Deal…

In 1939, the League of Nations’ published a report[3] that compared the economies of 22 major industrialized countries. Of the 22 nations surveyed by the League study, fully 19 showed a HIGHER rate of recovery in industrial production than the United States. Only three nations—Holland, Norway and Denmark—had higher rates of unemployment than the United States.

The economy of nearly all these countries experienced REAL growth WITHOUT major Keynesian deficit spending.

The League’s report goes on to state that by 1938…

• The United States’ level of national industrial production was only 65% of 1929 levels.

 In contrast…

• Germany’s level of national industrial production had risen to 117% of 1929 levels.
• Great Britain’s level of national industrial production had risen to 124% of 1929 levels.
• Sweden’s level of national industrial production had risen to 149% of 1929 levels.
• Japan’s level of national industrial production had risen to 170% of 1929 levels.

The League report also noted that…

• “Both the Roosevelt administration and the Blum government in France adopted far-reaching social and economic policies, which combined recovery measures with measures of social reform… The consequent doubt regarding the prospects of profit and the uneasy relations between business-men and the Government have in the opinion of many, been an important factor in delaying recovery… [by 1938, France and the United States had] failed to regain the 1929 level of employment and production.”

By most accounts, FDR was largely ignorant of economics and basic business principles (having never owned or managed one himself) and seemed content to wallow in his fiscal cluelessness.

In his first Inaugural Speech to the Nation (4 March 1933)…during the worst banking panic in America’s history…which had begun a mere 17 days before…after even the Federal Reserve had been closed…FDR offered the following solution:

• “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work… It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize use of our natural resources… We must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers, and by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land. [Government relief efforts] can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other public utilities… We must act and act quickly.”

FDR also declared that he was willing to set aside the Constitution, if necessary, to achieve these goals…

• “It is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure. I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require.”

FDR concluded his address by aiming a thinly veiled threat at Congress…

• “In the event Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”

The “esteemed” historians who participated in the various polls listed above also apparently “missed?” the damning testimony offered by the chief architect of FDR’s New Deal, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr. (Roosevelt and Truman administrations, 1934-1945), who testified before the House Ways & Means Committee (May 1939):

• “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… We have said we would give everybody a job that wanted it. We have never taken care of the people…there are four million that don’t have much income. We have never done anything for them… I say after eight years of this administration we just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot.”[4]

In their mindless affection for FDR, it seems that historians of the modern era have chosen to play favorites instead of pursuing the evidence. Until they loosen their ideological death-grip on true history, their ratings will remain impervious to the truth.

[Underlined passages mine].