A major criticism of the Constitution in recent years is that prior to the passage of the 13th Amendment it had maintained slavery as a national institution. Yet this claim does not match what took place at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 nor is it reflected in what the document actually says about slavery itself.
In an opinion piece for the New York Times, establishment historian Sean Wilentz argues that contrary to recent statements by Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and others, the United States was not “founded on slavery,” calling this “one of the most destructive falsehoods in all of American history.”
Although many proslavery elements were present at the Constitutional Convention and strove to make slavery a permanent part of the Constitution, their efforts failed despite securing compromises that merely tolerated the existence of slavery rather than endorse it. Wilentz writes:
“James Madison (himself a slaveholder) opposed the ardent proslavery delegates and stated that it would be “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.” The Constitutional Convention not only deliberately excluded the word “slavery,” but it also quashed the proslavery effort to make slavery a national institution, and so prevented enshrining the racism that justified slavery.”
Full commentary @ The Tenth Amendment Center http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/09/23/constitutionally-slavery-was-not-a-national-institution/
Carly Fiorina proved at least one thing last week. Namely, you don’t have to be a career GOP politician to come across as a war-mongering neocon and abortion-bashing statist demagogue. She took the stage fully formed as a frightul modern-day Torquemada, threatening to bring fire and brimstone down on anyone running afoul of her righteous indignation and crystal clear grasp of the Truth.
That included about everyone on the world stage, save for the presumably sainted Bibi Netanyahu. As for the others, Putin was to be given the silent treatment and a stiff dose of NATO encirclement, while Iran was to be occupied by US inspectors at “every military and every nuclear facility…….. anytime, anywhere……”
Full expose by David Stockman @ http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/clueless-carly-crony-capitalist-war-monger-with-flash-cards/?utm_source=wysija&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Mailing+List+AM+Wednesday
The Riverside County Libertarian Party will hold a general meeting on Wednesday, October 14, 2015. The meeting will take place at Back to the Grind Coffee House
3575 University Avenue
The meeting will take place from 7:30 PM to 9:00 PM in the downstairs meeting room. It is open to anyone interested in political action for freedom. There is no charge but we will accept contributions to the Riverside County Libertarian Party.
We will discuss the upcoming initiative to legalize recreational marijuana in California, and the possible Gary Johnson for President Campaign in 2016. We will elect officers to lead the party campaigns through the next year.
For more information call Gene Berkman @ (951) 369-8843 or visit
Renaissance Book Shop
3772 Elizabeth Street
Riverside, CA 92506
As the political campaign of Hillary Clinton continues to run aground, Democrats are flocking to the campaign of Bernie Sanders, the self-described “socialist” US senator from Vermont, who has been a fixture in that state for more than three decades. Not unlike the presidential campaign of Ron Paul, Sanders is drawing large, enthusiastic crowds who are very receptive to his message of increased state control of the US economy.
Obviously, when a person running a campaign based upon socialist principles is drawing attention and big crowds, we might ask just what does Sanders mean by “socialist,” and what would he do if he were elected president of the United States? To better answer that question, I am taking a closer look at what we would call the “economics” of Bernie Sanders.
What Do We Mean by “Socialism”?
Before looking at Sanders’s platform, however, I believe it is important to note that when socialists speak of “victories” in the economy, they are not talking about actual results, but rather political achievements in the forms of laws being passed that mandate certain policies. Whether or not these policies actually achieve what socialists claim will be accomplished is another story altogether, but results are irrelevant to socialists.
This should surprise no one because, after all, socialism is based upon political control of the economy.
Full post by William Anderson @ The Mises Institute https://mises.org/library/economics-bernie-sanders