Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death! Paraphrase

Here is my paraphrase of the Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death speech that Founding Father Patrick Henry gave:

Mr. President:

I don’t think the less of freedom anymore than the next man does, or even you. If what I say offends any of you, I’m sorry, and I apologize, but nonetheless it is of a matter of importance, not to me alone, but to everyone. The question before the house is a matter of freedom or slavery. So if I keep my opinions back because of giving offense I would divert the truth which is like lying to myself to the country, and the Almighty One. It is common for man to believe in hope, to shut his eyes against pain, but the pain doesn’t go away. No! It doesn’t! I don’t believe in this and I will try my best to know the whole truth and to provide for it. Experience is my guiding light to see through the trouble. I myself don’t believe the British will help us, you can see that from the past. We shall decieve ouselves no more. By deceiving ourselves we would then comply to British accusations that we are weak and they are strong. We have tried peaceful tactics, did everything we could but to no avail. The war will come, and let it come! I repeat let it come! We shall use the weapons we know and not surrender. We are already in slavery, but no more if we have this war. Peace will not come for those who cry out, but only to those who fight for it. I cannot speak for everybody, but as for myself, let me be free or kill me!

I wrote this I believe when I was in grade school. I got a 29/30 score. The errors on the original essay were corrected here.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers Notes

Myths of the Founding Fathers:

• The Founding generation created a democracy.
• The Founding Fathers really believed everyone was equal.
• Slavery was a sin of the Southern founders. Slavery was not a purely regional sin, largely because it was northern ships that conducted the slave trade.
• Paul Revere single-handedly warned the Boston countryside of the impending British invasion. Revere arrived in Lexington first and met with Hancock and Adams. [William] Dawes arrived thirty minutes later, joined by Samuel Prescott, they rode on to warn the people of Concord of the impending attack. But before they reached the town, British sentries stopped them at a roadblock. Revere was arrested, but Dawes and Prescott escaped. Dawes, however, fell off his horse and was injured, leaving Prescott to alert the Minutemen of Concord on his own.
• Benjamin Franklin had thirteen to eighty illegitmate children!
• Thomas Jefferson kept a concubine slave and fathered children with her! In 2001, the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society…released a report that directly contradicted [this myth]. In the summary of their findings, the scholars stated,”With the exception of one member…our individual conclusions range from serious skepticism about the charge to a conviction that is almost certainly false.” The scholars pointed to Jefferson’s brother, often called “Uncle Randolph,” as the probable father of Heming’s children. Randolph Jefferson was reported to have a social relationship with the Monticello slaves and had possibly fathered other children through his own servants.
• Washington had an affair with his neighbor’s wife! This myth has been a rumor since the publication of a suspect letter in the New York Harold in 1877. The contents of the letter seemed to indicate that Washington and Sally Fairfax…had a passionate, romantic interest in one another. No evidence of an affair exists. Washington’s primary biographer, Douglass Southall Freeman, wrote that such an affair would surely been the subject of considerable gossip in Virginia’s elite circles. Freeman believed Washington loved Sally Fairfax, but she did not return the admiration. While those letters have been cited on numerous occasions since John C. Fitzpatrick, who worked at the Library of Congress and had an enormous interest in Washington, included the letters in his thirty-seven volume series of Washington’s writings and correspondance (published between 1931 and 1944), their authenticity has always been in question.
• Alexander Hamilton had a gay lover! The myth of Hamilton’s homosexual past centers on his relationship with John Laurens of South Carolina. Both men served under George Washington during the American Revolution. Laurens and Hamilton developed a close relationship. Hamilton told Laurens that he loved him, and Laurens referred to Hamilton as “My Dear.” They were both young, involved in a dire situation, and had idealistic notions about life and society. They were kindred spirits, but no hint of a sexual relationship exists.
• John Hancock signed the Declaration of Indepedence in a big, bold hand so the king could read it without his glasses. Hancock signed it first and largest because he was the president of the Congress.

What the Founding Fathers would do*:

1. Follow the Constitution.
2. Cut federal spending and reduce the public debt.
3. Eliminate taxes and rein-in or abolish the Federal Reserve system.
4. Reduce the size of the military, and end foreign alliances and foreign wars.
5. Limit immigration.
6. Reassert state control over state issues.
7. Preserve the Bill of Rights.

Thomas Jefferson quotes:

A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town.

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that…it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.

The President is bound to stop at the limits prescribed by our Constitution and law to the authorities in his hands, [and this] would apply in an occasion of peace as well as war.

John Adams quotes:

I expressly say that Congress is not a representative body but a diplomatic body, a collection of ambassadors from the thirteen sovereign States…nor indeed, in any moment of my life, did I ever approve of a consolidated government, or would I have given my vote for it. A consolidated government under a monarchy, an aristocracy, or democracy, or a mixture of either, would have flown to pieces like a glass bubble under the first blow of a hammer on an anvil.

Take Care that they [children] don’t go astray. Cultivate their Minds, inspire their little Hearts, raise their Wishes. Fix their Attention upon great and glorious Objects, root out every little Thing, weed out every Meanness, make them great and manly. Teach them to scorn Injustice, Ingratitude, Cowardice, and Falsehood. Let them revere nothing but Religion, Morality and Liberty.

Facts are stubborn things: and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. – at the Boston Massacre Trial, 1770.

All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another. – Samuel Adams, 1772.

Give all the power to the many, they will oppress the few. Give all the power to the few, they will oppress the many. Both, therefore, ought to have power, that they each may defend itself against one another.  - Alexander Hamilton, 1787.

Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency: but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes. – Benjamin Franklin, 1789.

A nation oppresed by taxes, can never be generous, benevolent or enlightened. – John Taylor of Caroline, 1814.

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render troops in a great measure unnecessary. – Richard Henry Lee, 1788.

Source: The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers (2009) by Brion McClanahan, Ph. D.

 

*This is why the Left loathes the Founders.

How Donald Trump Can Politically Attack Hillary Clinton

From Dick Morris.com (June 24):

• Go after each of the Clinton Foundation/speaking fees that the Clintons have received and link them to actions by Hillary's State Department.
• Make clear that Hillary failed her test as Commander-in-Chief by her ineptitude and deceit on Benghazi.
• Attack how Hillary exposed our national secrets to foreign hacking just to conceal her e mails form the American media.
• Revisit her theft of gifts to the White House and discuss how she had to return so many of them.
• Go after her for insider trading in cattle futures.
• Expose her legal work on an illegal land deal in Arkansas and how she hid the billing records and lied to a grand jury (Castle Grande or AIDC land deal).
• Discuss how she had detectives blackmail and intimidate all of the women with whom Bill was involved.

Source: “How Trump Can Get His Groove Back” by Dick Morris.

All this is fair game. She is going after him personally so at least he can go after her with the above. He needs to get more specific which is has sort of done already.

Should Bad People Be Allowed to Save Lives?

From FEE.org:

Many  people believe for-profit kidney sales are wrong because they think people who save lives ought not be motivated by self-interest.*

There are lots of problems with this thought. Does it imply that competent and skilled surgeons (firefighters, nurses, police officers, EMTs, etc.) who are just in it for the money, or who are significantly motivated by personal gain, ought not take the job?

Suppose Helen is a sociopath who doesn’t care about others. She would all things equal prefer to be a fighter pilot, because that’s the job she most intrinsically enjoys. She thinks the life of a surgeon sucks. But suppose she would be an excellent surgeon. She decides to become a surgeon just because it pays better. As a result, she saves many lives. By hypothesis, Helen has bad character, but it seems weird to say that she’s done anything wrong, or that she should not become a surgeon for the money.

Consider a variation of Singer’s drowning child thought experiment:

Three toddlers are drowning in three different pools.

In the first case, a person says, “I value the toddler’s life for its own sake, and I am willing to save the child without getting a reward.”

In the second case, a person says, “I am willing to save the child only if I make a small profit. $10 will do it.”

In the third case, a person says, “I am not willing to save the child myself — I can’t be bothered to do so, because I don’t care enough about other people. However, I think the idea of saving a child for profit is evil. So, in addition to not saving the child myself, I’m also going to make sure that person 2 doesn’t save the child for $10 either.”

The first person is the most noble. The second person isn’t noble, but at least he’s willing to help people for money. The third person, it seems to me [the author, John Brennan], is vile and rotten. He uses moral language, but he is himself a morally contemptible figure. He refuses to help a child himself, and also, at the same time, stops less than fully virtuous people like person 2 from saving children.

Many opponents of kidney sales strike me as being like person three. I’ve given the Markets without Limits talk in front of about 3,000 total people at this point. I’ve always ask if anyone has voluntarily given another person a kidney. So far, no one has, even though it’s reasonable to estimate that at least 2,700 of the audience members I’ve encountered were healthy enough to do so, with little to no long-term health costs. So, one thing I know about the audience members I’ve encountered (including those at left-wing places like Boulder or Hanover†) is that they don’t care enough about strangers to save their lives by donating a kidney.

* One of the first things you learn in moral theory is that the moral status of an action and of the motivation behind that action can come apart. A person can do the right thing for the wrong reason or the wrong thing for the right reason. For instance, suppose I rescue a drowning toddler, but only because I mistakenly believe the toddler is the next Hitler. My motives are bad, but my action was still right. Or, suppose a parent gives her autistic child a bleach enema because she falsely believes that will cure the disease. Here, her motives might be good, but her action is wrong.

† I always ask people if they would be willing to sell a kidney for various amounts of money. Two trends I’ve noticed: Young people seem more willing to sell than middle-aged people at any given price. That’s not surprising. The other: people at very left-wing universities are far less willing to sell than people at more moderate universities (or, to be precise, less willing to admit they are willing to sell). [read more]

The author has a point. And not just for kidney markets but for any organ a person wants to sell to help another person. I really don’t see a problem with a person selling an organ with a doctor’s advice and supervision. Whether you sell it or donate it the body part or piece of it, the result is the same—the body part is gone. So, why not sell it? Maybe the problem is knowing the monetary worth of the organ. An organ specialist could help in this situation. Which why it is a good idea not to remove the organ until you get a price you think is fair.

The person in the third case could be a pro-choice person who think aborting a fetus which has its own DNA is okay but selling an organ isn’t. An organ belongs to a person—a fetus doesn’t. Then again under socialized medicine selling organs would be a mute point because it is the State that owns your body not you. So, you would have to get its permission to sell or even to donate an organ.

The FCC and Netflix

From FEE.org (May 11):

In the Golden Age of Television, video consumers don’t have much to complain about. We have cable, satellite, and telco providers; Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon; smart TVs, Chromecasts, and tablets.

There have never been more devices, more content, and more ways to watch. So what problem is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) trying to solve by meddling in this market?

The purpose of regulation, at least in theory, is to protect consumers from marketplace harms. And while robust competition is usually the best antidote, government can fill the gaps by regulating in a smart, neutral way — e.g. rooting out fraud, preserving clean water, etc.

………………………

So what does that look like in the Golden Age of Television? Too many remotes. The FCC thinks you have too many remotes, and that government intervention is the solution.

Having one remote for Xfinity but a different one for Netflix? What a nightmare! Having to rent a set-top box from your cable company to watch TV? FCC to the rescue.

……………………………..

It’s often said that technology regulation inevitably fights the last battle. By the time the dust settles from years of litigation, the market has already solved or mooted the problem. In this case, we don’t even have to wait. The market has already crashed the FCC’s party.

Despite that, the Commission is moving ahead with plans to “open up” the set-top box by forcing multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) — think cable, satellite, and telephone companies — to allow other companies like Google and Amazon to reconfigure and carry their signals in third-party apps and set-top boxes. Currently, MVPD subscribers can access their content only through a rented set-top box or the MVPD’s app. [read more]

Yea, what the FCC is doing is stupid. Then again it is a gov’t agency filled with bureaucrats that think they are smarter than the free market.

Pro-Gun Control Dem Senator Stuns With Claim on What’s Really ‘Killing Us Right Now’

From The Blaze.com (June 16):

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on Thursday called for new control measures to prevent potential terrorist suspects from buying guns. The big problem right now, according to the Democrat, is “due process.”

Manchin said the FBI did “everything they were supposed to do” in its two investigations into Orlando gunman Omar Mateen. Neither investigation returned actionable evidence and Mateen went on to kill 49 people and injure over 50 others at a gay nightclub in the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. [read more]

Really? “Due process” is the big problem? Not Islamic extremism? Well, you can add that right to the growing list of rights the Left doesn’t like.

They don’t like freedom of speech if it contradicts what the Left believes like global warming. Freedom of religion they don’t like if it includes Christianity. And you have to make cakes for gay couples getting married if you own a Christian bakery—clear violation of freedom of assembly. The Left doesn’t like guns because they are “weapons of wars” as said by Hillary Clinton. That’s the new catch phrase. Watch it being used more.

If the FBI weren’t restricted in their law enforcement by political correctness there’s is a big chance that the Orlando act of terrorism wouldn’t have happened. And calling the people who were suspicious of the terrorist racist doesn’t help anything. It could actually hurt—people could stop reporting suspicious behavior if the person is Muslim.

In 2006 Hillary Clinton Agreed With Trump About Illegals

From The Blaze.com (June 9):

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly criticized Donald Trump for saying that he wants to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, but a 2006 video by then-Sen. Clinton seems to suggest she agreed with Trump at one time.

“The Mexican government’s policies are pushing migration north,” Clinton told the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C., 10 years ago. “There isn’t any sensible approach, besides what we need to do simultaneously: secure our borders with technology, personnel, physical barriers, if necessary, in some places.”

The proposal seems to contradict Clinton’s oft-repeated 2016 campaign statement that the U.S. shouldn’t be building walls, but bridges. Clinton has also gone after Trump’s proposal to deport illegal immigrants out of the U.S., but in the same 2006 speech, Clinton said she was open to deporting those who have committed crimes.  [source]

So, back then she was for the wall and even deportation? Hmmm. Her supporters would say she evolved since then or something stupid like that. The only thing I can say is will the real Hillary Clinton stand up.

Russia Held Successful Flight Test for Anti-Satellite Missile

From News Max.com (May 27):

Russia held a successful flight test of an anti-satellite missile that has the capability of shooting down orbiting satellites, according to American defense officials.

The Washington Free Beacon U.S. intelligence satellites monitored the successful launch from a test site 500 miles north of Moscow.
The Nudol direct-ascent anti-satellite missile was also successfully tested in November 2015, the Free Beacon said.

The missile indicated a Russian interest in increasing its capabilities in outer space, according to Air Force Lt. Gen. David J. Buck, who explained at a House of Representatives hearing in March that "Russia views U.S. dependency on space as an exploitative vulnerability."

Former Pentagon official Mark Schneider said that military leaders regard such missiles as a serious threat. In the Free Beacon report, Schneider mentioned that, "The loss of GPS guidance due to attack would take out a substantial part of our precision weapons' deliverance capability and essentially all of our standoff capability."

Russian military analyst Pavel Podvig explained that it's possible Russia does not have a plan for the anti-satellite missile in place. "I wouldn't be surprised if the system is being developed just because it can be developed." [read more]

That doesn’t sound good. Can’t trust Putin.

New ISIS 'kill' list 'targets thousands of Americans'

From Vocativ.com (June 8):

(VOCATIV) — A pro-ISIS “hacking” group calling itself the United Cyber Caliphate distributed its latest “kill” list this week. The group claims the list includes names, addresses, and email addresses belonging to 8,318 people, making it one of the longest target lists ISIS-affiliated groups have distributed.

In a post Vocativ uncovered on the messaging app Telegram that was written in both English and Arabic, the United Cyber Caliphate called on its supporters to “follow” those listed and “kill them strongly to take revenge for Muslims.”

Most of the names and the accompanying addresses listed appear to belong to people in the United States, Australia, and Canada. Out of 7,848 people identified as being in the U.S. alone, 1,445 were listed as having addresses in California, 643 in Florida, 341 in Washington, 333 in Texas, 331 in Illinois, and 290 in New York. Another 312 names and addresses allegedly belong to people in Canada, while 69 allegedly belong to people in Australia. Another 39 are affiliated with the U.K. and the rest are listed with addresses in Belgium, Brazil, China, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, New Zealand, South Korea, Sweden and Trinidad and Tobago. [read more]

ISIS really has to be stopped. I wonder how many of those on the hit list are military.

H/T: WND.com.

Setting Priorities for Welfare Reform

From The Daily Signal:

Although the welfare reform of the 1990s was popular and initially successful, it was actually quite limited. Of 80 welfare programs, only the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program was reformed, and even in TANF, the vigor of reform has nearly disappeared. Welfare reform should be rejuvenated and expanded by making the following changes.

1. Set the proper goals for welfare. The goal of welfare should not be to reduce poverty through an ever-larger welfare state. Rather, the goals should be to increase self-sufficiency (having an income above poverty level without relying on government welfare aid); enhance productive participation in society; and improve personal well-being and upward mobility.
2. Clearly enumerate the total cost of the means-tested welfare in the Congressional Budget Resolution and set annual spending caps on total welfare spending.
3. Measure poverty, income, living standards, and inequality correctly.
4. Require able-bodied non-elderly adults receiving welfare benefits to work, prepare for work, or at least look for a job under supervision as a condition for receiving aid.
5. Promote healthy marriage in low-income communities.
6. Reject the ineffective pseudo-federalism of welfare block grants and begin to implement real federalism by transferring fiscal responsibility for low-income housing from the federal government to the states.
7. Reform the earned income tax credit. Fraud can be greatly reduced by requiring income verification before payments are made and limiting eligibility to custodial parents and legal guardians.
8. Reduce welfare fraud.Work requirements such as those recommended in this paper substantially reduce welfare fraud because requiring a recipient to be in the welfare office periodically interferes with holding a hidden or unreported job. Recipients cannot be two places at once. Faced with a work requirement, many recipients with hidden jobs simply leave the rolls.
9. Reform social service and training programs by funding them on a pay-for-outcome basis.
10. Create greater employment opportunities for hard-to-employ individuals in low-income neighborhoods.

[read more]

Makes perfect sense to me.

The Nature of Social Sciences

I had a cultural anthropology professor once said during the course that because of the nature of the science a scientist had to be or try to be honest. Objectivity cannot be obtained because you are interacting with people and they could influence you and you them.

Thinking back on what he said I believe that’s a noble goal. That goal should be applied to all social sciences (economics, psychology, sociology, etc.) because they all deal with the study of people hence the word “social.” Actually, it could really be applied to all sciences for that matter especially in matters of ambiguity. If a scientist is puzzled about a particular phenonomena he/she should say so. He should say he has no clear answer but does have theories or beliefs about it (if he does have one)—not facts if there are no facts. This is the least he can do.

Hillary To Her Voters: Stay Home, I’ve Already Won

From The Hillary Daily.com (May 23):

In one of the dumbest things any candidate for any office has ever said, Hillary Clinton told CNN’s Chris Cuomo that the primaries are basically over. “I will be the nominee for my party, Chris. That is already done, in effect. There is no way that I won’t be.”

Other than soothing her own anxieties by anticipating victory, her statement is nothing but counterproductive.

It tells her own voters not to bother to turn out and vote. She has, after all, already won she says.

It says to voters in California, Oregon, Washington State, South Dakota, New Mexico, New Jersey and Montana that their role in the nominating process has been eclipsed: Hillary has won. [read more]

Wow, what nerve. Then again when the fix is in I guess she can say that unless of course she gets indicted then who knows who will be nominated at the convention. Possibly Joe Biden.

Trump’s Economic Plan: Higher Taxes, Higher Inflation, and Higher Minimum Wage

From FEE.org:

That didn’t take long.

It was only days after Donald Trump clinched the Republican nomination that the mask (such as it was) came off. Suddenly he was telling multiple interviewers that he could be talked into raising taxes, boosting the minimum wage, and printing enough money to pay the national debt in cheap dollars.

"On my plan [taxes are] going down. But by the time it's negotiated, they'll go up," Trump said. “In my opinion, the taxes for the rich will go up somewhat." (After the outcry, he claimed he meant up from his proposed cuts.)

As for the minimum wage, he talks like Obama, completely uninterested in market forces, as if what people are paid is purely at the discretion of political managers: “I think people have to get more… I don't know how you live on $7.25 an hour.”

Oh, but he says he would leave it to the states to decide the height of the wage floor, which raises the question of why he is talking about it at all, since that can presumably happen now. The Department of Labor he would head as president possesses plenty of power to strongly nudge states however it wants. If Trump favors a higher wage floor, he is going to get it.

And, incidentally, such a higher floor could be an crucial part of an anti-immigration policy as well. If low-wage jobs become illegal, immigrants have no reason to cross the border at all. The eugenicists who passed the 1920s immigration laws understood this well.  [read more]

When you increase the minimum wage that hurts entry workers—teenagers. The wage should be negotiated between the employer and employee. Gov’t should keep out of it. Then again if big gov’t thinks the employers are the oppressors then a minimum wage makes sense (so do unions for that matter). I am not saying that employers are perfect but like everyone else they are human. Like teachers, labor union leaders, college professors, etc.

Here’s a question: What if the employee wants to give the job a try? Or wants on-the-job training like an apprenticeship? A minimum wage would prevent this from happening. When a business (especially a small business) hires someone its always taking a risk. Will this person be a hard worker? Show up on time? Will he/she fit into the business climate? That’s why some small family-owned business hire only family members—there is hardly any risk. They know who they are hiring.

FEE.org also has another article called “How Minimum Wages Discourage Entrepreneurship” which explains how the minimage wage law affects business and its employees in other negative ways. And it has an article called “Five Facts about Minimum Wages.”