Rice field in Japan

http://youtu.be/L_q_iOObid4

http://www.shootfirsteatlater.com/2009/12/amazing-rice-fields-of-japan.html#.TjT11JCARI8.facebook

Top 10 Examples of Government Waste - Brian Riedl - The Heritage Foundation

This is a Backgrounder On
Federal Budget Top 10 Examples of Government WastePublished on April 4, 2005 by Brian Riedl Backgrounder

President George W. Bush has proposed terminating or strongly reducing the budgets of over 150 inefficient or ineffective programs. This is a step in the right direction to pare back the runaway spending that has pushed the budget deficit over $400 billion. In less than three years, the first baby boomers will begin to collect Social Security: Lawmakers must therefore begin to reduce spending now to make room for the massive Social Security and Medicare costs that will follow.

The first place to trim runaway federal spending is in waste, fraud, and abuse. Congress, however, has largely abandoned its constitutional duty of overseeing the executive branch and has steadfastly refused to address the waste littered across government programs. In 2003, an attempt by House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-IA) to address wasteful spending was rejected by the House of Representatives, and similar calls in 2004 by then-Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles (R-OK) were rejected by the Senate. A small group of House lawmakers has formed the Washington Waste Watchers, but their agenda has not been embraced by the whole House.

Lack of information is not the problem. Today, government waste investigations and recommendations can be found in hundreds of reports, such as:

Studies published by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), [1]
The Congressional Budget Office's Budget Options book,
Inspector general reports of each agency,
Government Performance and Results Act reports of each agency,
The White House's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) program reviews, and
The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee's 2001 Government at the Brink reports.
For those seeking past recommendations that went unheeded, the 1984 Grace Commission report on government waste and the 1993-1995 publications of Vice President Al Gore's National Performance Review can still be found.

With all of this available information and in an era of tight budgets, why are lawmakers so resistant to reducing waste? One reason is that they see it as a thankless job that would go unnoticed back home. With Congress in session just 80 days annually, reducing waste would take precious time away from most lawmakers' higher priorities of increasing spending on popular programs and bringing pork-barrel projects home.

A second reason is that some of the most wasteful programs are also the most popular (e.g., Medicare), and lawmakers fear that opponents would portray them as "attacking" popular programs. Consequently, waste and inefficiencies continue to build up, costing taxpayers more while providing beneficiaries with less.

A real war on government waste could easily save over $100 billion annually without harming the legitimate operations and benefits of government programs. As a first step, lawmakers should address the 10 following examples of egregious waste.

1. The Missing $25 Billion
Buried in the Department of the Treasury's 2003 Financial Report of the United States Government is a short section titled "Unreconciled Transactions Affecting the Change in Net Position," which explains that these unreconciled transactions totaled $24.5 billion in 2003. [2]

The unreconciled transactions are funds for which auditors cannot account: The government knows that $25 billion was spent by someone, somewhere, on something, but auditors do not know who spent it, where it was spent, or on what it was spent. Blaming these unreconciled transactions on the failure of federal agencies to report their expenditures adequately, the Treasury report concludes that locating the money is "a priority."

The unreconciled $25 billion could have funded the entire Department of Justice for an entire year.

2. Unused Flight Tickets Totaling $100 Million

A recent audit revealed that between 1997 and 2003, the Defense Department purchased and then left unused approximately 270,000 commercial airline tickets at a total cost of $100 million. Even worse, the Pentagon never bothered to get a refund for these fully refundable tickets. The GAO blamed a system that relied on department personnel to notify the travel office when purchased tickets went unused. [3]

Auditors also found 27,000 transactions between 2001 and 2002 in which the Pentagon paid twice for the same ticket. The department would purchase the ticket directly and then inexplicably reimburse the employee for the cost of the ticket. (In one case, an employee who allegedly made seven false claims for airline tickets professed not to have noticed that $9,700 was deposited into his/her account). These additional transactions cost taxpayers $8 million.

This $108 million could have purchased seven Blackhawk helicopters, 17 M1 Abrams tanks, or a large supply of additional body armor for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

3. Embezzled Funds at the Department of Agriculture

Federal employee credit card programs were designed to save money. Rather than weaving through a lengthy procurement process to acquire basic supplies, federal employees could purchase job-related products with credit cards that would be paid by their agency. What began as a smart way to streamline government has since been corrupted by some federal employees who have abused the public trust.

A recent audit revealed that employees of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) diverted millions of dollars to personal purchases through their government-issued credit cards. Sampling 300 employees' purchases over six months, investigators estimated that 15 percent abused their government credit cards at a cost of $5.8 million. Taxpayer-funded purchases included Ozzy Osbourne concert tickets, tattoos, lingerie, bartender school tuition, car payments, and cash advances.

The USDA has pledged a thorough investigation, but it will have a huge task: 55,000 USDA credit cards are in circulation, including 1,549 that are still held by people who no longer work at the USDA. [4]

4. Credit Card Abuse at the Department of Defense

The Defense Department has uncovered its own credit card scandal. Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used government-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 for admission to entertainment events, $48,250 for gambling, $69,300 for cruises, and $73,950 for exotic dance clubs and prostitutes. [5]

5. Medicare Overspending

Medicare wastes more money than any other federal program, yet its strong public support leaves lawmakers hesitant to address program efficiencies, which cost taxpayers and Medicare recipients billions of dollars annually.

For example, Medicare pays as much as eight times what other federal agencies pay for the same drugs and medical supplies. [6] The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently compared the prices paid by Medicare and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care program for 16 types of medical equipment and supplies, which account for one-quarter of Medicare's equipment and supplies purchases. The evidence showed that Medicare paid an average of more than double what the VA paid for the same items. The largest difference was for saline solution, with Medicare paying $8.26 per liter compared to the $1.02 paid by the VA. [7] (See Table 1.)















These higher prices not only cost the program more money, but also take more money out of the pockets of Medicare beneficiaries. In 2002, senior citizens' co-payments accounted for 20 percent of the $9.4 billion in allowed claims for medical equipment and supplies. [8] Higher prices mean higher co-payments.

Medicare also overpays for drugs. In 2000, Medicare's payments for 24 leading drugs were $1.9 billion higher than they would have been under the prices paid by the VA or other federal agencies. Although Medicare is supposed to pay wholesale prices for drugs, it relies on drug manufacturers to define the prices, and manufacturers have strong incentives to inflate their prices. [9]

Nor are inflated prices for drugs and supplies the most expensive examples of Medicare's inefficiencies. Basic payment errors-the results of deliberate fraud and administrative errors-cost $12.3 billion annually. As much as $7 billion owed to the program has gone uncollected or has been written off. [10] Finally, while Medicare contracts claims processing and administration to several private companies, 19 cases of contractor fraud have been settled in recent years, with a maximum settlement of $76 million. [11]

Putting it all together, Medicare reform could save taxpayers and program beneficiaries $20 billion to $30 billion annually without reducing benefits. That would be enough to fund a $3,000 refundable health care tax credit for nearly 10 million uninsured low-income households.

6. Funding Fictitious Colleges and Students

In 2002, the Department of Education received an application to certify the student loan participation of the Y'Hica Institute in London, England. After approving the certification, the department received and approved student loan applications from three Y'Hica students and disbursed $55,000.

The education Department administrators overlooked one problem: Neither the Y'Hica Institute nor the three students who received the $55,000 existed. The fictitious college and students were created (on paper) by congressional investigators to test the Department of Education's verification procedures. All of the documents were faked, right down to naming one of the fictional loan student applicants "Susan M. Collins," after the Senator requesting the investigation. [12]

Such carelessness helps to explain why federal student loan programs routinely receive poor management reviews from government auditors. At last count, $21.8 billion worth of student loans are in default, and too many cases of fraud are left undetected. [13] Tracking students across federal programs, verifying loan application data with IRS income data, and implementing controls to prevent the disbursement of loans to fraudulent applicants could save taxpayers billions of dollars.

7. Manipulating Data to Encourage Spending

The Army Corps of Engineers spends $5 billion annually constructing dams and other water projects. Yet, in a massive conflict of interest, it is also charged with evaluating the science and economics of each proposed water project. The Corps' "strategic vision" calls on managers to increase their budgets as rapidly as possible, which requires approving as many proposed projects as possible. [14] Consequently, the Corps has repeatedly been accused of deliberately manipulating its economic studies to justify unworthy projects.

Investigations by the GAO, The Washington Post, and several private organizations have found that Corps studies routinely contain dozens of basic arithmetic errors, computer errors, and ridiculous economic assumptions that artificially inflate the benefits of water projects by as much as 300 percent. [15] In one case, a study's authors inflated a project's benefits by using a 2.5 percent interest rate that dated back to 1954. In many cases in which the Corps calculated that a project would be a net benefit, arithmetic corrections revealed that the costs would be many times greater than the benefits. [16] By that point, of course, the unnecessary and wasteful project is often underway and cannot be stopped.

These errors appear to reflect more deception than sloppiness. A Washington Post investigation uncovered managers ordering analysts to "get creative," to "look for ways to get to yes as fast as possible," and "not to take no for an answer." After a public outcry, in 2002, the Corps suspended work on 150 projects to review the economics used to justify them. [17] However, given the combination of Congress's thirst for pork-barrel projects and the Corps' built-in incentives to approve projects that will increase its budget, real reforms seem unlikely.

8. State Abuse of Medicaid Funding Formulas

Significant waste, fraud, and abuse pervade Medicaid, which provides health services to 44 million low-income Americans. While states run their own Medicaid programs, the federal government reimburses an average of 57 percent of each state's costs.

This system gives states an incentive to overreport their Medicaid expenditures in order to receive larger federal reimbursements. Not surprisingly, the GAO has identified state schemes that shift money between state accounts to create an illusion of higher Medicaid expenditures. Similarly, some states have spent their federal Medicaid dollars on non-Medicaid purposes. Tight state budgets like those experienced by most states today have increased the pressure to use such deceptive tactics.

The GAO and the HHS Inspector General have also uncovered some states' practice of recovering improper payments, retaining the funds, and then spending them on unrelated programs-a practice that costs the federal government well over $2 billion per year. Congress could enact legislation to prohibit these actions more effectively.

Minor reforms enacted by HHS in 2001 and 2002 are expected to save Medicaid $70 billion over the next decade. A small sample of financing schemes uncovered in a few states suggests that, if Congress acts, even larger savings are available. [18]

9. Earned Income Tax Credit Overpayments

The earned income tax credit (EITC) provides $31 billion in refundable tax credits to 19 million low-income families. The IRS estimates that $8.5 billion to $9.9 billion of this amount-nearly one-third-is wasted in overpayments.

The complexity of the EITC law leads to many of these mistakes. Calculating the credits is more complex than calculating regular income taxes. While the credit amount depends on the number of children in a household, the tax code does not clearly define how a child qualifies for the credit. In addition, fraud and underreporting of income are common, and the IRS lacks the resources to verify the qualifications of all EITC claimants.

Efforts are being made to address this problem, but Congress can do more by requiring better verification of incomes and by clearly defining the standards by which a child qualifies for the EITC. [19]

10. Redundancy Piled on Redundancy

Government's layering of new programs on top of old ones inherently creates duplication. Having several agencies perform similar duties is wasteful and confuses program beneficiaries who must navigate each program's distinct rules and requirements.

Some overlap is inevitable because some agencies are defined by whom they serve (e.g., veterans, Native Americans, urbanites, and rural families), while others are defined by what they provide (e.g., housing, education, health care, and economic development). When these agencies' constituencies overlap, each relevant agency will often have its own program. With 342 separate economic development programs, the federal government needs to make consolidation a priority.

Consolidating duplicative programs will save money and improve government service. In addition to those programs that should be eliminated completely, Congress should consolidate the following sets of programs:

342 economic development programs;
130 programs serving the disabled;
130 programs serving at-risk youth;
90 early childhood development programs;
75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities;
72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water;
50 homeless assistance programs;
45 federal agencies conducting federal criminal investigations;
40 separate employment and training programs;
28 rural development programs;
27 teen pregnancy programs;
26 small, extraneous K-12 school grant programs;
23 agencies providing aid to the former Soviet republics;
19 programs fighting substance abuse;
17 rural water and waste-water programs in eight agencies;
17 trade agencies monitoring 400 international trade agreements;
12 food safety agencies;
11 principal statistics agencies; and
Four overlapping land management agencies. [20]

Conclusion

Lawmakers have an opportunity to take a strong stand for efficient government and spending restraint. Reforming wasteful programs will build essential momentum for the larger reforms that are needed to bring the budget under control.

Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Balanced Budget Amendment: Instrument to Force Spending Cuts, Not Tax Hikes

This is a WebMemo On
Budget and Spending Balanced Budget Amendment: Instrument to Force Spending Cuts, Not Tax Hikes
Published on July 21, 2011 by Edwin Meese, III

As Congress considers what to do about federal overspending and overborrowing, conservatives must maintain focus. We must pursue the path that drives down federal spending and borrowing and gets to a balanced budget, while preserving our ability to protect America and without raising taxes. An important part of that conservative agenda is adoption of a sound—repeat, a sound—Balanced Budget Amendment.[1] A Balanced Budget Amendment is not sound if it leads to balancing the federal budget by tax hikes instead of spending cuts. Thus, a sound Balanced Budget Amendment must prohibit raising taxes unless a two-thirds majority of the membership of both Houses of Congress votes to raise them. Without the two-thirds majority requirement, the Balanced Budget Amendment becomes the means for big spenders to raise taxes.

Supporters of the Balanced Budget Amendment rightly want to force the federal government to live within its means—to spend no more than it takes in. Because the government has failed for decades to follow that balanced budget principle, America is now $14.294 trillion in debt, a debt of more than $45,000 for every person in the United States.[2]

President Obama is making things worse. In discussions with congressional leaders, he has pushed hard to get authority to borrow yet more trillions of dollars and hike taxes. And the White House reiterated this week that President Obama opposes amending the Constitution to require the federal government to balance its budget.[3]

A Sound Balanced Budget Amendment Must Require Two-Thirds Majorities to Raise Federal Taxes

Like 72 percent of the American people, The Heritage Foundation favors passage by the requisite two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and ratification by the requisite 38 states of an effective Balanced Budget Amendment to become part of our Constitution.[4] Heritage has made clear that an effective Balanced Budget Amendment must control spending, taxation, and borrowing; ensure the defense of America; and enforce, through the legislative process and without interference by the judicial branch, the requirement to balance the budget.[5] A sound Balanced Budget Amendment will drive down federal spending and end federal borrowing.

To date, Congress has proposed one largely sound Balanced Budget Amendment for consideration—Senate Joint Resolution 10, often called the Hatch-Lee Amendment after its main proponents.[6] It has a number of important features, such as an annual federal spending cap of not to exceed 18 percent of the economy’s annual output of goods and services (called the gross domestic product, or GDP) that Congress cannot exceed, except by a law passed with two-thirds majorities in both Houses of Congress or in specified circumstances involving military necessity.

A crucial feature is included in section 4 of the Balanced Budget Amendment proposed by Senate Joint Resolution 10: “Any bill that imposes a new tax or increases the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of revenue may pass only by a two-thirds majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote.” The requirement that no tax hikes occur without the approval of 290 Representatives and 67 Senators is essential in a sound Balanced Budget Amendment. Without the requirement for two-thirds majorities for any tax increase, the Balanced Budget Amendment becomes a sword for big spenders to use to raise taxes, instead of a shield to protect Americans from tax hikes. Those who seek to anchor into our Constitution a requirement to balance the budget must always remember that, if the only requirement is “balance,” that can be achieved two ways—cut spending or hike taxes. A sound Balanced Budget Amendment will balance the budget by driving down federal spending and not by driving up federal taxes.

Balanced-Budget States That Allow Simple Majorities for Tax Hikes Face Situations Very Different from That of the Federal Government

Some look at the experience of states that have requirements in their constitutions for a balanced state budget and draw the wrong conclusion about the need for two-thirds majorities for taxation. They mistakenly conclude that a requirement merely for simple majorities in state legislatures to raise taxes suffices to keep state taxation under control and therefore that a federal Balanced Budget Amendment should require only simple majorities in Congress to raise taxes. But the balanced budget requirement at the state level occurs in a very different context from such a requirement at the federal level.

As a practical matter, state legislators regularly work and live among the people they represent, often do their legislative work face-to-face with their constituents, and often depend upon direct contact with voters to persuade voters to keep the legislators in office. As a result, state legislators tend to be closely attuned and responsive to the need of their constituents for reasonableness in taxation. In contrast, U.S. Senators and Representatives spend much of their time distant from the people they represent, often deal with their constituents through the insulation of large staffs, and amass large campaign funds through political fundraising that allow them to depend more upon expensive mass communications than upon direct contact with voters to persuade the voters to keep them in office. As a result, U.S. Senators and Representatives tend to be less directly attuned and responsive to the need of their constituents for reasonableness in taxation than state legislators are. Accordingly, while a requirement for merely simple majorities in state legislatures to raise taxes may suffice to keep taxes under control in that state, simple majorities are not likely to keep taxes under control at the federal level—as the experience of federal tax increases in the last 50 years proves.

Some who recognize the need for taxpayer protection by requiring supermajorities, rather than just simple majorities, of the two Houses of Congress to raise taxes think a supermajority of three-fifths of both Houses would suffice. While three-fifths would add a modicum of taxpayer protection in the House, three-fifths would add little if anything in the way of taxpayer protection in the Senate, which already often requires a three-fifths majority to proceed to consideration of legislation. The existing three-fifths rule in the Senate has often failed to protect taxpayers from federal tax increases in the past. A sound Balanced Budget Amendment would add protection for taxpayers in both Houses of Congress by a requirement for two-thirds majorities of the membership of both Houses to raise taxes.

Conclusion: Adopt the Two-Thirds Majority Requirement for Tax Hikes, to Make the Balanced Budget Amendment the Instrument of Spending Cuts and Not Tax Hikes

America’s soon-to-be New Minority—people who pay federal income tax—need protection from unreasonable taxation.[7] When all Americans have the right to vote, but only a minority has the duty to pay the federal income taxes from which all Americans benefit, the risk is high that a non-taxpaying majority will elect a Congress pledged to adopt taxation that oppresses the taxpaying minority. The impulse to seek something for nothing has regrettably taken root in the American body politic in the past century. The requirement in the Balanced Budget Amendment of a two-thirds majority of the membership of both Houses of Congress to raise taxes will protect a taxpaying minority against oppressive taxation.

As Congress continues on the path toward adopting a joint resolution to recommend a Balanced Budget Amendment to the states for ratification, Congress should ensure that the Amendment includes a requirement for approval by two-thirds of the membership of the two Houses of Congress for tax hikes. Absent such a requirement, the Balanced Budget Amendment will encourage tax hikes instead of spending cuts as the means to balance the budget, making the Amendment the friend of the tax, spend and borrow crowd, instead of the friend of those who believe in limited government, free enterprise, and individual freedom.

Edwin Meese III is the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

We Still Hold These Truths - The Heritage Foundation

http://bcove.me/yao33vu5

We Still Hold These Truths
Recorded on November 19, 2010

The sound of rain w/o music

http://youtu.be/1pSyYhRYeIM

Uploaded by BartMan444 on Jun 21, 2008

http://www.amazon.com/Thunderstorm-Sounds/dp/B0042IS49K
Get a 60 minute download of relaxing 'light rain and thunder here'


raaaaaaiiiiiinnnnn :D

What Are the Stakes in the Debt Ceiling Fight

Friday, July 22, 2011

Fellow conservatives,

We find ourselves in the midst of an important battle, the outcome of which will be determined by decisions to be made in the immediate days ahead. We must win this fight. The debate over raising the debt limit seems complicated, but it is really very simple. Look beyond the myriad details of the awkward compromises, and you see an epic struggle between two opposing camps.

On one side are those who have come to realize it would be madness to let the political class borrow more without imposing a serious check on government spending. They have produced budgets and now an actual legislative plan to get things under control.

On the other, you find those who consider more spending, taxing, and borrowing a royal prerogative. They have produced nothing but rhetoric and empty promises and have pushed this debate to the brink.

It is a fair fight—or would be, if those trying to bring sanity to the nation’s fiscal picture were not held back by confused allies. These allies say they still want to cut spending, but (temporarily, we hope) have put love of political maneuvering ahead of the principles that brought them to Washington in the first place.

It would also help if the nation’s media clearly separated facts from opinion.

Let’s be clear. As of this moment, only one plan in Congress attempts transformative change that puts America on the path to getting spending under control before raising the debt limit. That is the Cut, Cap and Balance Act passed by the House of Representatives on Monday night. It isn’t perfect, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.

The act cuts federal spending immediately, caps it by statute going forward, and requires passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which would then be sent to the states for ratification.

If you haven’t heard about it, you’re not alone. The nation’s media all but ignored this historic vote or dismissed the Cut, Cap and Balance Act as an empty gesture. CBS’s Bob Schieffer once again spoke for the establishment when he called it “a total waste of time…part of this little Kabuki dance that we go through.”

This media establishment took its cue from President Obama, who showered his trademark disdain on the House vote, not only threatening a veto but also announcing a so-called breakthrough in negotiations just hours before the House voted. In doing so, Mr. Obama refused to engage the arguments of Cut, Cap and Balance and signaled his fear of this serious proposal.

Unfortunately, it was not just the media and President Obama who worked against Cut, Cap and Balance. By letting themselves be talked into agreeing to a compromise the very day of the House vote, a group of Senators called the “Gang of Six” played into the hands of those who wanted to kill Cut, Cap and Balance.

The same can be said of the so-called McConnell–Reid Plan, a convoluted mousetrap of a compromise that would just authorize trillions more in borrowing with an empty promise that—maybe—Congress will cut spending one day.

There is no more time left for political gamesmanship by the tax, spend, and borrow crowd. The Senate has an obligation to debate Cut, Cap and Balance, and the American people need to be given time to consider it. We agree with Senator Ron Johnson (R–WI), who told MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough this week, “I know Washington is broken. I see business as usual here. But now we’re witnessing business as usual on steroids, and it’s bankrupting this nation.”

Senator Johnson’s solution, which seems to us the only way forward, was the following:

If we’re really going to prevent America from going bankrupt, it’s a two-step process. The first thing we have to do is instill that fiscal discipline: the hard spending caps. And I think honestly, in the end we need a Constitutional amendment to limit the size of government. Anything else—all these other negotiations, secret little things, commissions—that’s business as usual, and again, that has been bankrupting America. We’ve got to step back from that. We’ve got to instill fiscal discipline. That’s what Cut, Cap and Balance does.

The men and women thinking of compromising at this point are not bad or unpatriotic; they simply have lost their way. Those of us who still watch old movies can compare the present situation to the 1957 classic “The Bridge on the River Kwai.”

In the film, an upright British colonel who had become a prisoner of war forgets temporarily the principles he was sworn to uphold and—to show his Japanese captors the professionalism of British soldiers—puts his men to work building the best bridge possible.

In the end, he recovers his sanity and realizes he is only helping the Japanese war effort, and he helps destroy the bridge.

It isn’t too late for us yet. Government spending is currently at 24.3 percent of GDP, and U.S. debt held by the public stands at 69.1 percent of GDP. This bridge needs to be stopped.

Congress should not raise the debt limit without getting spending under control. Debt limit legislation should put America on the path to driving down federal spending and borrowing, while preserving the ability to protect America without raising taxes.

Edwin J. Feulner

President, The Heritage Foundation

Gotta Love this Cop

A police motorcycle cop stops a driver for running a red light. The driver is a real jerk, steps out of his car and comes striding toward the officer, demanding to know why he is being harassed by the Gestapo!

So the officer calmly tells him of the red light violation. The motorist instantly goes on a tirade, questioning the officer's ancestry, sexual orientation, etc., in rather explicit offensive terms.

The tirade goes on without the officer saying anything.

When the officer finishes writing the ticket he puts an "AH" in the lower right corner of the narrative portion of the ticket. He then hands it to the 'violator' for his signature. The guy signs the ticket angrily, and when presented with his copy points to the "AH" and demands to know what it stands for.

The officer says, "That's so when we go to court, I'll remember that you're an asshole!"

Two months later they're in court. The 'violator' has a bad driving record and he is in danger of losing his license, so he hired a lawyer to represent him.

On the stand the officer testifies to seeing the man run the red light.

Under cross examination the defense attorney asks; "Officer is this a reasonable facsimile of the ticket that you issued to my client?"

Officer responds, "Yes, sir, that is the defendant's copy, his signature and mine, same number at the top."

Lawyer: "Officer, is there any particular marking or notation on this ticket you don't normally make?"

"Yes, sir, in the lower right corner of the narrative there is an "AH, Underlined."

"What does the "AH" stand for, officer?"

"Aggressive and hostile, Sir."

"Aggressive and hostile?"

"Yes, Sir.”

"Officer, are you sure it doesn't stand for asshole?"

“Well, sir, you know your client better than I do.”


~~~How often can one get an attorney to convict his own client~~~

The Crawdad Song

The Crawdad Song Big Bill Broonzy


You'll get a line, (this the way the women sang it)
You'll get a line, I'll get a pole, honey, (and put the babies to sleep)
You'll get a line, I'll get a pole, babe,
You'll get a line, I'll get a pole, (and the men came in)
Let's go down to that crawdad's hole,
Now, honey, baby, mine.

Yond'r come a man with a sack on his back, now, honey,
Yond'r come a man with a sack on his back, oh, babe,
Yond'r come a man with a sack on his back,
He's got him all crawdads he can pack,
Now, honey, baby, mine.

Man fell down and he broke that sack, now, honey,
Man fell down and he broke that sack, babe,
Man fell down and he broke that sack,
You'd better see them all crawdad's crawlin' back,
Now, honey, baby, mine.

Sat on the pole, my feet got cold, now, honey,
Sat on the pole, my feet got cold, babe,
Sat on the pole, my feet got cold,
I was lookin' right down that crawdad's hole,
Honey, baby, mine.

What you gonna do when the pond goes dry, now, honey,
What you gonna do when the pond goes dry, babe,
What you gonna do when the pond goes dry,
I'm gonna stand on the bank
and watch the crawdad's die,
Honey, baby, mine.

I sat on the pole, my feet got cold, now, honey,
Sat on the pole, my feet got cold, babe,
Sat on the pole, my feet got cold,
Lookin' right down that crawdad's hole,
Now, honey, baby, mine.

What did the he duck said to the drake, now, honey,
What did the he duck said to the drake, babe,
What did the he duck said to the drake,
There ain't no crawdad's in this lake,
Honey, baby, mine.


From the album: Blues Roots vol.4

12,000 Years Old Unexplained Structure

http://youtu.be/Xo0ZkgqM1TE

You probably learned in school that Mesopotamia was the cradle of
civilization. However, a site in Turkey called Gobekli Tepe is proving that
wrong. The massive structures there are thought to be 12,000 years old. It's
an astonishing archeological discovery.


Uploaded by hka1984 on Feb 18, 2011

Göbekli Tepe, is a hilltop sanctuary erected on the highest point of an elongated mountain ridge some 15 km northeast of the town of Şanlıurfa, in southeastern Turkey and 500 miles away from Istanbul, Turkey. It is the most astonishing archaeological discovery in modern times and also thought to be the oldest advanced civilization on Earth.
Ancient Aliens Season - 02, Episode - 08 (Unexplained Structures).

Category:
Education

Tags:
Göbekli Tepe Sanliurfa Turkey Ancient Discovery Archaeological oldest 12000 years old advanced civilization 1994 19 feet high 20 tons stone circles animals creatures ancient aliens unexplained structures. mystery history amazing Atlantis human societies artifacts tools prehistoric society Archaeology evolution of civilization sculptures unknown hidden buried sand

Saving Valentina.6.8.11.h264.mov

http://youtu.be/EBYPlcSD490

Uploaded by elinoyes on Jun 13, 2011

Michael Fishbach narrates his encounter with a humpback whale entangled in a fishing net. Gershon Cohen and he have founded The Great Whale Conservancy to help and protect whales. Visit their website http://www.eii.org/gwc, facebook page, and join them in helping to save these magnificent beings.

Congressional Prayer Caucus

Congressional Prayer Caucus

http://www.forbes.house.gov/PrayerCaucus/

GOP Leader McConnell: Real Deficit Solution Is Unattainable “As Long As Obama Is in White House”

Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, July 12, 2011, 6:16 AM

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell slammed Obama today on the senate floor, “As long as this President is in the Oval Office, a real solution is unattainable.”
Business Insider reported:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) offered his strongest criticism yet of President Barack Obama’s leadership in the ongoing talks.

“I have little question that as long as this President is in the Oval Office, a real solution is unattainable,” he said on the Senate floor Tuesday. Adding, “This was not an easy decision for me.”

Obama, he said, “has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes or default. Republicans choose none of the above.”

McConnell added the Democratic budget plan would provide only “a couple of billion dollars in cuts up front with empty promises of more to follow.”

‘”I had hoped to do good, but I refuse to do harm,” he said.

Congressional leaders will return to the White House at 3:45 today to continue negotiations on reaching a deal.

The Skin Gun

http://youtu.be/eXO_ApjKPaI

Burn victims often need extensive skin replacement. It can be done, but it
takes weeks or months. This revolutionary new skin-spraying technology can
do it in hours. You have to see this to believe it. Warning: this video
contains disturbing images.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXO_ApjKPaI&feature=player_embedded

How the States Got Their Shapes

http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/tv/How-the-States-Got-Their-Shapes/141537/2042674163/Culture-Clash/videos?skipTo=196&cmpid=FCST_hero_tv

: Watch Culture Clash: How the States Got Their Shapes Full Length Episodes

3D Printer -WOW

http://youtu.be/ZboxMsSz5Aw

Uploaded by life4nothing on Jun 23, 2011
life4nothing
3D printing is a form of additive manufacturing technology where a three dimensional object is created by laying down successive layers of material. 3D printers are generally faster, more affordable and easier to use than other additive manufacturing technologies. 3D printers offer product developers the ability to print parts and assemblies made of several materials with different mechanical and physical properties in a single build process. Advanced 3D printing technologies yield models that can serve as product prototypes.

Category:
Science & Technology

Z CORPORATION

Burlington, Mass. / Portsmouth, N. H.

Tags:
3D Printer

Offices

Sales/Service Worldwide

Z Corporation has more than 180 sales & service locations across 61 countries. To have a local representative contact you, simply Request Information.

Corporate Offices
United States (Headquarters)

Z Corporation

32 Second Avenue

Burlington, MA 01803

USAPhone: +1 781 852 5005

Fax: +1 781 852 5100

Directions

Denmark

Z Corporation

Svanevang 2

DK-3450 Alleroed

Denmark

Phone: +1 781 418 2726 Email: emea@zcorp.com

Z Corp. German Website: http://www.zcorp.com/de/home.aspx
Z Corp. French Website: http://www.zcorp.com/fr/home.aspx
Z Corp. Spanish Website: http://www.zcorp.com/es/home.aspx
Z Corp. Italian Website: http://www.zcorp.com/it/home.aspx
Z Corp. Russian Website: http://www.zcorp.com/ru/home.aspx
Z Corp. Chinese Website: http://www.zcorp.com/cn/home.aspx

Japan

Z Corporation

Yokohama Landmark Tower 30th Floor

2-2-1 Minato-Mirai

Nishi-ku

Yokohama 220-8130

Japan

Phone: +81 (0) 45 224 3271

Fax: +81 (0) 45 224 3274 Email: apac@zcorp.com

Z Corp. Japanese Website: http://www.zcorp.com/jp/home.aspx

Britain's Got Talent: Janey Cutler - Britain's Got Talent 2010

http://youtu.be/JAwOZvvGsRs

Some people dedicate their lives to becoming a star. Others are just
satisfied to share their talents with family and friends. Janey Cutler has a
wonderful voice. But at 80, you wouldn't expect her to hit the stage. After
some goading from her friends, she did just that. See her amazing
performance on Britain's Got Talent.

Uploaded by BritainsGotTalent09 on May 8, 2010 BritainsGotTalent09

Britain's Got Talent: 80-year-old Janey Cutler has been told she has a wonderful singing voice, and her friends have been egging her on to enter the competition as she's got nothing to lose. Can we find yet another good singer on the Glasgow stage? See more at http://itv.com/talent

Category:
Shows

Tags:
Britain's Got Talent ITV Simon Cowell Amanda Holden Piers Morgan Auditions Janey Cutler 80 old lady woman susan boyle glasgow singing talented
License:
Standard YouTube License

Sent to me by : Jack Lewtschuk

July is National Baked Bean Month.

http://youtu.be/JjXzzAMU9Zo

I needa Bambulance

http://youtu.be/v_habakm5sw

This is a good classic. This recording has been played over radio stations and around the world.

Flying Car - Next Generation Transition(R) Unveiled

http://youtu.be/iE2Ij7Rfw1Q

Updated, optimized, improved - the next generation of the Transition(R) "Flying Car" has now been unveiled to the world. Check out the revolutionary safety, functionality and fun that the Transition(R) can bring to your personal aviation adventure!

Senior Motel Moment

Last week, she checked into a motel on her 70th birthday and she was a bit lonely. She thought, "I'll call one of those men you see advertised in phone books for escorts and sensual massages." She looked through the phone book, found a full page ad for a guy calling himself Tender Tony - a very handsome man with assorted physical skills flexing in the photo. He had all the right muscles in all the right places, thick wavy hair, long powerful legs, dazzling smile, six pack abs and she felt quite certain she could bounce a silver dollar off his well oiled bum....

She figured, what the heck, nobody will ever know. I'll give him a call.

"Good evening, ma'am, how may I help you? . . Oh my, he sounded sooo sexy!

Afraid she would lose her nerve if she hesitated, she rushed right in, "Hi, I hear you give a great massage. I'd like you to come to my motel room and give me one. No, wait, I should be straight with you. I'm in town all alone and what I really want is sex. I want it hot, and I want it now. Bring implements, toys, rubber, leather, whips, everything you've got in your bag of tricks. We'll go hot and heavy all night - tie me up, cover me in chocolate syrup and whipped cream, anything and everything, I'm ready!! Now how does that sound?"

He said, "That sounds absolutely fantastic, but you need to press 9 for an outside line."

Declaration of Independence

Happy Independence Day! Break out the hotdogs and fireworks. It's time to
party! But don't forget why we celebrate this day. It was on this day that
the Declaration of Independence was ratified. Have you ever read the whole
thing? It's an amazing document. And its ideals have inspired people for
more than 200 years.




http://youtu.be/jYyttEu_NLU

The DOI done Hollywood style. Check out more patriotic videos at www.constitutionlive.com

Japanese tsunami from a police vehicle abandoned by a cop

http://youtu.be/IQqmp9OOE1E

Earthquake March 11, 2011. The HD camera mounted on the dashboard has not only captured the shock but also the moments that followed, where many drivers were stranded by the waters of the tsunami

Tsunami Japanese inside a car

Had not seen this one before…. I thinks this was from a police vehicle abandoned by a cop and the dash-mounted video was left running. Hope the driver, whoever, made it out alive.....

http://wimp.com/japanesetsunami/

Great Memories When T. V. Entertained

Great memories when tv entertained.


This is awesome, pick out one of your favorites from below and give it a try...

1. JACKIE GLEASON ON THE ROCKY MARCIANO SHOW THE MAIN EVENT (1960)
2. JAMES DEAN: HIS FINAL TV APPEARANCE (1954)
3. ELVIS SINGS BLUE SUEDE SHOES (1956)
4. A TRIBUTE TO ELVIS PRESLEY, THE KING OF ROCK & ROLL (1959-62)
5. THE EDSEL INTRODUCED ON NBC (1957)
6. BOBBY DARIN'S "MACK THE KNIFE" (1959)
7. WESTINGHOUSE DEBUTS HI-TECH "ADVANCED TV" (1951)
8. WILLIAM BENDIX AS LOVABLE CHESTER A. RILEY (1956)
9. ICONS I: WHAT MADE 50'S TV GOLDEN (COMPILATION, (1952-60)
10. THE PATTI PAGE SHOW (1958)
11. BLOOPERS FROM THE HONEYMOONERS (1957-58)
12. THE CENSORED JERRY LEE LEWIS HERE UNCENSORED! (1957-59)
13. A TRUE 50's DOO WOP TV CLASSIC (1958)
14. FAMILY AFFAIR (1966)
15. ALAN FREED'S BIG BEAT DANCE PARTY DANCERS (1959)
16. THE STEVE ALLEN SHOW (1957)
17. The Inventor Of TV Sketch Comedy ERNIE KOVACS (1954)
18. THE RED SKELTON SHOW (1959)
19. ICONS: THE DELINQUENCY RAMPAGE! (COMPILATION, 1957-60)
20. FATHER KNOWS BEST (1953)
21. PETTICOAT JUNCTION (1962)
22. OLYMPIC GOLD MEDALIST BOB MATTHIAS (1956)
23. DANCES OF THE 1950's: THE HAND JIVE (1957)
24. GROUCHO MARX YOU BET YOUR LIFE (1959)
25. DRAGNET (1959)
26. THE IMMORTAL MUSICAL COMEDY OF VICTOR BORGE 1951
27. EDDIE FISHER SINGS A MEDLEY OF HIS BIGGEST HITS 1953
28. ABBOTT & COSTELLO: WHO'S ON FIRST? 1951
29. MORE DANCES OF THE 1950's THE JITTERBUG 1958
30. THE HONEYMOONERS ... IN COLOR! 1969
31. THE ORIGINAL FLASH GORDON SERIAL theatres-1939; TV-1960's
32. THE LONE RANGER 1955
33. THE ENDEARING GRIMACES OF EDDIE CANTOR 1952
34. BOBBY DARIN NERVOUSLY HOSTS A BEAUTY CONTEST 1957
35. MORE DANCES OF THE 1950's: THE LINDY HOP 1959
36. SHAKE, BABY, SHAKE! IT'S THE KILLER AGAIN! 1958
37. THE DANNY THOMAS SHOW 1958
38. SID CAESAR: YOUR SHOW OF SHOWS 1957
39. HERE COMES TOBOR! 1954
40. THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN 1954
41. THE ADVENTURES OF FLIPPER 1964
42. SPIKE JONES 1951
43. CAPTAIN VIDEO & HIS VIDEO RANGERS 1950
44. THE LIBERACE SHOW 1952
45. MEDIC 1954
46. THE BIG VALLEY 1965
47. THE ROOTS OF TV BASEBALL 1950-57
48. Mc HALE'S NAVY 1962
49. HOPALONG CASSIDY 1952
50. DARK SHADOWS 1966
51. FADS & FANCIES OF THE 50s & 60s
52. I LOVE LUCY 1952
53. THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW 1962
54. THE BEATLES FIRST TELEVISION APPEARANCE 1963
55. BAT MASTERSON 1958
56. MARTY ROBBINS ON THE JOHNNY CASH SHOW 1964
57. FRANK SINATRA SPEAKS CANDIDLY 1954
58. PASSWORD 1962
59. STAR TREK TV ON DEMAND 1966-present
60. MORE DANCES OF THE 50's: THE SWINGBACK 1958
61. THE LIVE TV FRIDGE COMMERCIAL CATASTROPHE 1954
62. THE ARTHUR GODFREY SHOW 1957
63. BUILDING THE 1958 DODGE 1957
64. FIGHT CLASSIC: ROCKY MARCIANO vs. JERSEY JOE WALCOTT 1952
65. AND MORE GREAT ICONS OF THE 50's VOL III 1952-59
66. ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS 1959
67. SATURDAY NIGHTLIVE~~ BEFORE SNL 1954-58
68. FELIX THE CAT 1959
69. THE DONNA REED SHOW 1958
70. THE GOLDBERGS 1952
71. LUCILLE BALL & CAROL BURNETT 1965
72. THE LITTLE RASCALS 1955
73. HIGHWAY PATROL 1956
74. LOST IN SPACE 1966
75. BEULAH 1951
76. BEWITCHED 1966
77. I DREAM OF JEANIE 1966
78. SEA HUNT 1957
79. DYNAMITE JOE RINDONE 1954
80. THE MILTON BERLE SHOW 1957

The Founding Fathers and Slavery

The Founding Fathers and Slavery
David Barton - 01/01/2001

Even though the issue of slavery is often raised as a discrediting charge against the Founding Fathers, the historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by, the Founding Fathers; slavery had been introduced to America nearly two centuries before the Founders. As President of Congress Henry Laurens explained:

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 ["do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Matthew 7:12]. 1

Prior to the time of the Founding Fathers, there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery. John Jay identified the point at which the change in attitude toward slavery began:

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. 2

The Revolution was the turning point in the national attitude–and it was the Founding Fathers who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, many of the Founders vigorously complained against the fact that Great Britain had forcefully imposed upon the Colonies the evil of slavery. For example, Thomas Jefferson heavily criticized that British policy:

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 [that is, he has opposed efforts to prohibit the slave trade]. 3

Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . .

. . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the 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. 4

Further confirmation that even the Virginia Founders were not responsible for slavery, but actually tried to dismantle the institution, was provided by John Quincy Adams (known as the "hell-hound of abolition" for his extensive efforts against that evil). Adams explained:

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 [Great Britain] 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. 5

While Jefferson himself had introduced a bill designed to end slavery, 6 not all of the southern Founders were opposed to slavery. According to the testimony of Virginians James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Rutledge, it was the Founders from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia who most strongly favored slavery. 7 Yet, despite the support for slavery in those States, the clear majority of the Founders opposed this evil. For instance, when some of the southern pro-slavery advocates invoked the Bible in support of slavery, Elias Boudinot, President of the Continental Congress, responded:

[E]ven the sacred Scriptures had been quoted to justify this iniquitous traffic. 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. 8

Many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves as British citizens released them in the years following America’s separation from Great Britain (e.g., George Washington, John Dickinson, Caesar Rodney, William Livingston, George Wythe, John Randolph of Roanoke, and others). Furthermore, many of the Founders had never owned any slaves. For example, John Adams proclaimed, "[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave." 9 Notice a few additional examples of the strong anti-slavery sentiments held by great numbers of the Founders:

[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil. 10 CHARLES CARROLL, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

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]. 11 JOHN DICKINSON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA

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. 12 JOHN JAY, PRESIDENT OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, ORIGINAL CHIEF JUSTICE U. S. SUPREME COURT

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. 13 THOMAS JEFFERSON

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. 14 RICHARD HENRY LEE, PRESIDENT OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

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. 15 WILLIAM LIVINGSTON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY

[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. 16 LUTHER MARTIN, DELEGATE AT CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

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]. 17

Honored will that State be in the annals of history which shall first abolish this violation of the rights of mankind. 18 JOSEPH REED, REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA

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 an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men. 19 BENJAMIN RUSH, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

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. 20 NOAH WEBSTER, RESPONSIBLE FOR ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION

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. 21 JAMES WILSON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

[I]t is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others . . . and take away their liberty by no better means than superior power. 22 JOHN WITHERSPOON, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

For many of the Founders, their feelings against slavery went beyond words. For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America’s first anti-slavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. In fact, when signer of the Constitution William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:

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. 23

Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more. In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts began abolishing slavery in 1780; 24 Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; 25 Vermont in 1786; 26 New Hampshire in 1792; 27 New York in 1799; 28 and New Jersey did so in 1804. 29
Additionally, the reason that Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a Congressional act, authored by Constitution signer Rufus King 30 and signed into law by President George Washington, 31 which prohibited slavery in those territories. 32 It is not surprising that Washington would sign such a law, for it was he who had 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]. 33

The truth is that it was the Founding Fathers who were responsible for planting and nurturing the first seeds for the recognition of black equality and for the eventual end of slavery. This was a fact made clear by Richard Allen.Allen had been a slave in Pennsylvania but was freed after he converted his master to Christianity. Allen, a close friend of Benjamin Rush and several other Founding Fathers, went on to become the founder of the A.M.E. Church in America. In an early address "To the People of Color," he explained:

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 with earnestness and zeal. 34

While much progress was made by the Founders to end the institution of slavery, unfortunately what they began was not fully achieved until generations later. Yet, despite the strenuous effort of many Founders to recognize in practice that "all men are created equal," charges persist to the opposite. In fact, revisionists even claim that the Constitution demonstrates that the Founders considered one who was black to be only three-fifths of a person. This charge is yet another falsehood. The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; rather, it was an anti-slavery provision to limit the political power of slavery’s proponents. By including only three-fifths of the total number of slaves in the congressional calculations, Southern States were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress. Based on the clear records of the Constitutional Convention, two prominent professors explain the meaning of the three-fifths clause:

[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. More important, the fact that slaves were counted at all was a concession to slave owners. Southerners would have been glad to count their slaves as whole persons. It was the Northerners who did not want them counted, for why should the South be rewarded with more representatives, the more slaves they held? 35 THOMAS WEST

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. 36 WALTER WILLIAMS

Why do revisionists so often abuse and misportray the three-fifths clause? Professor Walter Williams (himself an African-American) suggested: 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 demonstrated during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the framers’ ideas about natural law must be trivialized or they must be seen as racists. 37

While this has been only a cursory examination of the Founders and slavery, it is nonetheless sufficient to demonstrate the absurdity of the insinuation that the Founders were a collective group of racists.

For more information on this issue see George Washington, Thomas Jefferson & Slavery in Virginia, The Bible, Slavery, and America's Founders, Black History Issue 2003, Confronting Civil War Revisionism, and Setting the Record Straight (Book, DVD, or VHS).

Endnotes

1. Frank Moore, Materials for History Printed From Original Manuscripts, the Correspondence of Henry Laurens of South Carolina (New York: Zenger Club, 1861), p. 20, to John Laurens on August 14, 1776.

2. John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1891), Vol. III, p. 342, to the English Anti-Slavery Society in June 1788.

3. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), Vol. I, p. 34.

4. Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1839), Vol. VIII, p. 42, to the Rev. Dean Woodward on April 10, 1773.

5. John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 50.

6. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. I, p. 4.

7. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. I, p. 28, from his autobiography; see also James Madison, The Papers of James Madison (Washington: Langtree and O’Sullivan, 1840), Vol. III, p. 1395, August 22, 1787; see also James Madison, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt, editor, (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1910), Vol. IX, p. 2, to Robert Walsh on November 27, 1819.

8. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1834), First Congress, Second Session, p. 1518, March 22, 1790; see also George Adams Boyd, Elias Boudinot, Patriot and Statesman (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1952), p. 182.

9. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1854), Vol. IX, pp. 92-93, to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801.

10. Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York & London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1898), Vol. II, p. 321, to Robert Goodloe Harper, April 23, 1820.

11. Charles J. Stille, The Life and Times of John Dickinson (Philadelphia: J. P. Lippincott Company, 1891), p. 324, to George Logan on January 30, 1804.

12. John Jay, The Life and Times of John Jay, William Jay, editor (New York: J. & S. Harper, 1833), Vol. II, p. 174, to the Rev. Dr. Richard Price on September 27, 1785.

13. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, pp. 236-237.

14. Richard Henry Lee, Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee, and His Correspondence With the Most Distinguished Men in America and Europe, Illustrative of Their Characters, and of the American Revolution, Richard Henry Lee, editor (Philadelphia: H. C. Carey and I. Lea, 1825), Vol. I, p. 19, the first speech of Richard Henry Lee in the House of Burgesses of Virginia.

15. William Livingston, The Papers of William Livingston, Carl E. Prince, editor (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1988), Vol. V, p. 358, to James Pemberton on October 20, 1788.

16. Luther Martin, The Genuine Information Delivered to the Legislature of the State of Maryland Relative to the Proceedings of the General Convention Lately Held at Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Eleazor Oswald, 1788), p. 57; see also Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, editor (Washington: Printed for the Editor, 1836), Vol. I, p. 374.

17. Elliot’s Debates (Washington: Printed for the Editor, 1836), Vol. III, pp. 452-454, George Mason, June 15, 1788.

18. William Armor, Lives of the Governors of Pennsylvania (Norwich, CT: T. H. Davis & Co., 1874), p. 223.

19. Benjamin Rush, Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates from the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States Assembled at Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24.

20. Noah Webster, Effect of Slavery on Morals and Industry (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1793), p. 48.

21. James Wilson, The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804), Vol. II, p. 488, lecture on "The Natural Rights of Individuals."

22. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. VII, p. 81, from "Lectures on Moral Philosophy," Lecture X on Politics.

23. William Livingston, The Papers of William Livingston, Carl E. Prince, editor (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1988), Vol. V, p. 255, to the New York Manumission Society on June 26, 1786.

24. A Constitution or Frame of Government Agreed Upon by the Delegates of the People of the State of Massachusetts-Bay (Boston: Benjamin Edes and Sons, 1780), p. 7, Article I, "Declaration of Rights" and An Abridgement of the Laws of Pennsylvania, Collinson Read, editor, (Philadelphia: Printed for the Author, 1801), pp. 264-266, Act of March 1, 1780.

25. The Public Statue Laws of the State of Connecticut (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1808), Book I, pp. 623-625, Act passed in October 1777 and Rhode Island Session Laws (Providence: Wheeler, 1784), pp. 7-8, Act of February 27, 1784.

26. The Constitutions of the Sixteen States (Boston: Manning and Loring, 1797), p. 249, Vermont, 1786, Article I, "Declaration of Rights."

27. Constitutions (1797), p. 50, New Hampshire, 1792, Article I, "Bill of Rights."

28. Laws of the State of New York, Passed at the Twenty-Second Session, Second Meeting of the Legislature (Albany: Loring Andrew, 1798), pp. 721-723, Act passed on March 29, 1799.

29. Laws of the State of New Jersey, Compiled and Published Under the Authority of the Legislature, Joseph Bloomfield, editor (Trenton: James J. Wilson, 1811), pp. 103-105, Act passed February 15, 1804.

30. Rufus King, The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Charles King, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1894), Vol. I, pp. 288-289.

31. Acts Passed at a Congress of the United States of America (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1791), p. 104, August 7, 1789.

32. The Constitutions of the United States (Trenton: Moore and Lake, 1813), p. 366, "An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio," Article VI.

33. George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XXVIII, pp. 407-408, to Robert Morris on April 12, 1786.

34. Richard Allen, The Life Experience and Gospel Labors of the Right Rev. Richard Allen (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1983), p. 73, from his "Address to the People of Color in the United States."

35. Principles: A Quarterly Review for Teachers of History and Social Science (Claremont, CA: The Claremont Institute Spring/Summer, 1992), Thomas G. West, "Was the American Founding Unjust? The Case of Slavery," p. 5.

36. Walter E. Williams, Creators Syndicate, Inc., May 26, 1993, "Some Fathers Fought Slavery."

37. Williams, May 26, 1993, "Some Fathers Fought Slavery."