Trump and the Glorious Revolution

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 

Almost all Americans know these words, many of us review them at least annually. But they did not spring forth fully formed from Thomas Jefferson’s mind, great and agile as it was. They are part of our English inheritance, just as most of our government and constitution were. In fine, the entire concept comes from John Locke and his Second Treatise on Government. In it, he begins by defining political power as the:

right of making Laws with Penalties of Death, and consequently all less Penalties, for the Regulating and Preserving of Property, and of employing the force of the Community, in the Execution of such Laws and in defence of the Common-wealth from Foreign Injury, and all this only for the Publick Good.

The chief property he is referring to here is one’s body. One owns his own body and no one can tell him to use it otherwise than in his own interest. He also owns the things that he has made, and that includes his income and all the things he may purchase that derive from his labor. He also posits that the Legislature can only legitimately legislate from the basis of the natural law and that it must apply equitably to all citizens and not favor certain sections of the citizenry.

Here is the ultimate defense of the right of self-defense, so eloquently stated in both the  English and American Bills of Rights. And the delegation of that right (while still preserving it to us as individuals) was one of the things we did as we instituted governments amongst men.

And that is also why the President was entirely correct in stating that he would never denounce the right of American citizens to defend themselves or their property from lawless rioters.

The Democrat city and state hierarchies have been almost uniformly derelict or worse in protecting their citizens against the mobs that Democrats themselves have set loose amongst them, and mind, this is primarily a city and state responsibility, one of the major reasons they exist, that no person or shopkeeper in these cities can reasonably expect protection from the authorities, and thus the right to defend themselves and their property comes right back to them, unless and until they can again get reasonable assurance that the government will protect them.

The legislative body and it’s executive, whether from within the body or separately elected is central to all this, and I’ve merely skimmed it. But when the government in any or all of its parts (executive, legislative, and judicial in Locke’s view as in the Constitution) shirk or evade that duty, as we are seeing this year in many Democrat run cities, then the people have the inherent right to remove the offending officials, or to supersede them, or even to revolt, changing the entire form of government.

Unalienable Rights

I’m one of the people that has fairly often argued that the American Revolution and all that followed is based (in some measure) on John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government. Robert Curry of The Claremont Institute in an American Thinker article titled Why ‘Unalienable’? disagrees with me, saying.

Locke’s Two Treatises of Government appeared in 1690.  The articles by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay that became The Federalist began appearing in American newspapers in 1787.  Quite a lot had happened during that intervening century.  The greatest development of all during that time was the onset of the American Enlightenment, that explosion of human genius that gave America and the world the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and The Federalist.  The Founders carried out a revolution in thinking about the meaning and possibilities of human life unlike anything the world had ever known before — and by 1776, they were only getting started.  Thomas Jefferson later called The Federalist “the best commentary on the principles of government, which ever was written.”  He was right about that.  The distance in thought between Locke’s Two Treatises and The Federalist is simply enormous.

And you know, he has much right here. When I talk about Locke, my point is that he clarified much out of the miasma of (primarily) English medieval growth in rights and freedom. He was not the final answer. The American Enlightenment built on the work of Locke, of Luther, of Blackstone, of Smith, of Francis Hutcheson, and of many others reaching back into antiquity. Mr. Curry writes:

The Founders had a special purpose in using the language of the legal transfer of property in the negative with reference to our rights.  Their special purpose was to make it clear that our natural, essential, and inherent rights are not our property — that is, their special purpose was to make it clear they were not relying on Locke’s account of rights.

In fact, they were doing more; they were evoking a subtle and profound argument that directly challenged Locke’s account of rights.  To take you to that argument is to take you to the source of the Founders’ use of that special word “unalienable.”  Here is Francis Hutcheson in his A System of Moral Philosophy (1755) rejecting Locke’s account of our rights: “Our rights are either alienable or unalienable … our right to our goods and labours is naturally alienable.”  Locke, you see, put property at the core of his account:

Man … hath by nature a power … to preserve his property — that is, his life, liberty and estate.

For Locke, property is the overarching concept.  In fact, property gets a special emphasis by appearing twice; “estate” is another word for property.  By making the case that our rights to our life and to our liberty are such that we cannot alienate them, Hutcheson was arguing that Locke had not correctly characterized our relation to our lives and our liberty.  Locke had made what philosophers call a category mistake.  Property is alienable; unalienable rights are not property.  It is because our right to our property is alienable that we can sell, exchange, and bequeath our property.

The Founders embraced Hutcheson’s argument.  They understood that our rights to life and liberty are natural and inherent to our being as humans.  Our unalienable right to our life and our unalienable right to our liberty cannot rightfully be sold or transferred as property can be.  To say those rights are unalienable is to emphasize how fundamentally different they are from our right to our property — and to reject Locke’s account.

And that is the final point of rights. They are not ours to keep or give away or sell for whatever advantage. They are a gift from our creator, which we are bound by duty to Him, to those who discovered them, and to our descendants who will enjoy them, to defend.

I think Mr. Curry overstates a bit, but he does it to make a point. The way Locke presents, it is entirely up to us whether we fight, with words, or other means, to maintain our rights. The conception that America brings the world is that it not optional, it is our foremost duty to maintain our unalienable rights. And that is final.

And right here we find the baseline reason why it was the English and the Americans who abolished slavery wherever in the world their writs run. Because those men, women, and children have exactly the same rights as George Washington or King George. That is how important the change from Locke to the American founders is.

And that is why President Coolidge could say, on our 150th anniversary of the Declaration that proclaimed this to the world that:

If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor

Yesterday, we looked at words, ink on parchment, that formalized the American Revolution, but what happened after. Not so much the military campaigns, although they are fascinating, but to these men, who took this vote. But we don’t forget the very first man who died for American Independence, a man named Crispus Attucks, a free black man, who was shot by the British at the Boston Massacre, in 1770.

For all the noise we have heard lately about Thomas Jefferson, he has as good a claim as any to be America’s first abolitionist. Here is the clause that Rutledge insisted on removing.

“has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere.”

There, right there, is the death knell of American slavery, in the hand of the man who authored of American freedom.

But Jefferson, like Adams and Franklin, realized that the important thing was independence, and the rest could be fixed as time went by. So it would prove, although 600,000 Americans, mostly white, would die to make it so.

Fifty-six men signed the Declaration of Independence, the video is representative of the scene although they fiddled a bit with the timeline. Two, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson would be the 2d and 3d Presidents of the United States, as well as friends, then enemies and finally friends again. They died on 4 July 1826, the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration. Jefferson’s last recorded words, on the evening of the 3d of July, were, “Is it the Fourth yet?”. Adams died later that day saying, “Jefferson survives.” That left only Charles Carroll of Carrollton, who was also one of the founders of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.

The other fifty-three, while not as storied, all had their life changed by John Hancock’s invitation to commit treason. Gary Hildrith did the research, which he published at Tales Along the Way

Have you ever wondered what happened to the fifty-six men who signed the Declaration of Independence? This is the price they paid:Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the revolutionary army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the fifty-six fought and died from wounds or hardships resulting from the Revolutionary War.These men signed, and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor!

What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants. Nine were farmers and large plantation owners. All were men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty could be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers or both, looted the properties of Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

Perhaps one of the most inspiring examples of “undaunted resolution” was at the Battle of Yorktown. Thomas Nelson, Jr. was returning from Philadelphia to become Governor of Virginia and joined General Washington just outside of Yorktown. He then noted that British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarter, but that the patriot’s were directing their artillery fire all over the town except for the vicinity of his own beautiful home. Nelson asked why they were not firing in that direction, and the soldiers replied, “Out of respect to you, Sir.” Nelson quietly urged General Washington to open fire, and stepping forward to the nearest cannon, aimed at his own house and fired. The other guns joined in, and the Nelson home was destroyed. Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis’s Long Island home was looted and gutted, his home and properties destroyed. His wife was thrown into a damp dark prison cell without a bed. Health ruined, Mrs. Lewis soon died from the effects of the confinement. The Lewis’s son would later die in British captivity, also.

“Honest John” Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she lay dying, when British and Hessian troops invaded New Jersey just months after he signed the Declaration. Their thirteen children fled for their lives. His fields and his grist mill were laid to waste. All winter, and for more than a year, Hart lived in forests and caves, finally returning home to find his wife dead, his chidren vanished and his farm destroyed. Rebuilding proved too be too great a task. A few weeks later, by the spring of 1779, John Hart was dead from exhaustion and a broken heart.

Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.

New Jersey’s Richard Stockton, after rescuing his wife and children from advancing British troops, was betrayed by a loyalist, imprisoned, beaten and nearly starved. He returned an invalid to find his home gutted, and his library and papers burned. He, too, never recovered, dying in 1781 a broken man.

William Ellery of Rhode Island, who marveled that he had seen only “undaunted resolution” in the faces of his co-signers, also had his home burned.

Only days after Lewis Morris of New York signed the Declaration, British troops ravaged his 2,000-acre estate, butchered his cattle and drove his family off the land. Three of Morris’ sons fought the British.

When the British seized the New York houses of the wealthy Philip Livingston, he sold off everything else, and gave the money to the Revolution. He died in 1778.

Arthur Middleton, Edward Rutledge and Thomas Heyward Jr. went home to South Carolina tight. In the British invasion of the South, Heyward was wounded and all three were captured. As he rotted on a prison ship in St. Augustine, Heyward’s plantation was raided, buildings burned, and his wife, who witnessed it all, died. Other Southern signers suffered the same general fate.

Among the first to sign had been John Hancock, who wrote in big, bold script so George III “could read my name without spectacles and could now double his reward for 500 pounds for my head.” If the cause of the revolution commands it, roared Hancock, “Burn Boston and make John Hancock a beggar!”

Here were men who believed in a cause far beyond themselves.

Such were the stories and sacrifices of the America revolution. These were not wild eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: “For the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

Emphasis mine Life, Fortune, and Sacred Honor

That was their definition of the phrase, “Lives, Fortune and our Sacred Honor”. Thomas Paine would write that fall that:

 Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.

A Committee of the Whole

Oil on canvas painting of Richard Henry Lee. Photo credit: Wikipedia

Something different this week. I’m a bit tired of the Stürm und Drang of politics, especially in Washington and London. I also suspect that they’ll still be going at it when we return, soap operas are like that. And besides it’s the Fourth of July week, and nothing they’re going to do in the next few days is anywhere near as important as what the Second Continental Congress did this week 243 years ago. Most of these posts are from 2012 when this blog was less than a year old, and I’m making minimal changes to them, and most of you are new here, and they are just as valid as they were then. Hope you enjoy them.

Let us take note that today there is a document in the committee of the whole of Congress, for editing. It was written by Mr. Jefferson of Virginia, pursuant to a resolution offered by Virginia Delegate Richard Henry Lee and seconded by John Adams of Massachusetts.

“Resolved, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”

We would be wise to note that this resolution was passed with heavy hearts, not from fear, but from long affection for our cousins in the United Kingdom.

Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.

—Thomas Jefferson, November 29, 1775

So it would be. It is the same conflict that led to Magna Charta, and to the Glorious Revolution. This time carried out in a war that would change the world. In fact, many of us refer to it as the Second English Civil War, for such it was.

We probably won’t take the time later this week so let’s note now that the ensuing unpleasantness would lead to one of the largest mass emigrations the United States would ever see, that of many Loyalists to Canada. They imparted to the Canucks some measure of understanding us without taking our world famous rowdiness with them. God Bless them.

They like the United Kingdom itself would in time become the friends that prove Bismarck’s dictum true, “Great Nations do not have friends, they have interests”. This nation does.

And we noted a few days ago the 3d anniversary of the United Kingdoms own Independence Day. the British finding, as we did, that the major obstacle to freedom, is Parliament. They too will win through, I think.

A film clip perhaps, showing Hollywood’s version of the difference between Americans and Canadians.

And so as we begin the celebration of independence this week, we would be wise to remember that while we have the oldest government in the world, we are amongst the youngest of countries. But we had a head start, for we built this country on the shoulders of giants.

Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor

As we near the end of the year, perhaps we should remind ourselves of how we obtained our freedom, and our British cousins perhaps need a reminder in times that are fairly dark in their quest for Bexit and the independence it offers, that such a gift to our children and ourselves is very costly. As Thomas Paine wrote in The American Crisis,

“What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.”

Fifty-six men signed the Declaration of Independence, the video is representative of the scene although they fiddled a bit with the timeline. Two, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson would be the 2d and 3d Presidents of the United States, as well as friends, then enemies and finally friends again. They died on 4 July 1826, the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration. Jefferson’s last recorded words, on the evening of the 3 of July were, “Is it the Fourth yet?”. Adams died later that day saying, “Jefferson survives.” That left only Charles Carroll of Carrollton, who was also one of the founders of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.

The other fifty-three, while not as storied, all had their life changed by John Hancock‘s invitation to commit treason. Gary Hildrith did the research, which he published at Tales Along the Way

Have you ever wondered what happened to the fifty-six men who signed the Declaration of Independence? This is the price they paid:Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the revolutionary army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the fifty-six fought and died from wounds or hardships resulting from the Revolutionary War.These men signed, and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor!

What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants. Nine were farmers and large plantation owners. All were men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty could be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers or both, looted the properties of Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

Perhaps one of the most inspiring examples of “undaunted resolution” was at the Battle of Yorktown. Thomas Nelson, Jr. was returning from Philadelphia to become Governor of Virginia and joined General Washington just outside of Yorktown. He then noted that British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarter, but that the patriot’s were directing their artillery fire all over the town except for the vicinity of his own beautiful home. Nelson asked why they were not firing in that direction, and the soldiers replied, “Out of respect to you, Sir.” Nelson quietly urged General Washington to open fire, and stepping forward to the nearest cannon, aimed at his own house and fired. The other guns joined in, and the Nelson home was destroyed. Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis’s Long Island home was looted and gutted, his home and properties destroyed. His wife was thrown into a damp dark prison cell without a bed. Health ruined, Mrs. Lewis soon died from the effects of the confinement. The Lewis’s son would later die in British captivity, also.

“Honest John” Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she lay dying, when British and Hessian troops invaded New Jersey just months after he signed the Declaration. Their thirteen children fled for their lives. His fields and his grist mill were laid to waste. All winter, and for more than a year, Hart lived in forests and caves, finally returning home to find his wife dead, his chidren vanished and his farm destroyed. Rebuilding proved too be too great a task. A few weeks later, by the spring of 1779, John Hart was dead from exhaustion and a broken heart.

Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.

New Jersey’s Richard Stockton, after rescuing his wife and children from advancing British troops, was betrayed by a loyalist, imprisoned, beaten and nearly starved. He returned an invalid to find his home gutted, and his library and papers burned. He, too, never recovered, dying in 1781 a broken man.

William Ellery of Rhode Island, who marveled that he had seen only “undaunted resolution” in the faces of his co-signers, also had his home burned.

Only days after Lewis Morris of New York signed the Declaration, British troops ravaged his 2,000-acre estate, butchered his cattle and drove his family off the land. Three of Morris’ sons fought the British.

When the British seized the New York houses of the wealthy Philip Livingston, he sold off everything else, and gave the money to the Revolution. He died in 1778.

Arthur Middleton, Edward Rutledge and Thomas Heyward Jr. went home to South Carolina tight. In the British invasion of the South, Heyward was wounded and all three were captured. As he rotted on a prison ship in St. Augustine, Heyward’s plantation was raided, buildings burned, and his wife, who witnessed it all, died. Other Southern signers suffered the same general fate.

Among the first to sign had been John Hancock, who wrote in big, bold script so George III “could read my name without spectacles and could now double his reward for 500 pounds for my head.” If the cause of the revolution commands it, roared Hancock, “Burn Boston and make John Hancock a beggar!”

Here were men who believed in a cause far beyond themselves.

Such were the stories and sacrifices of the America revolution. These were not wild eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: “For the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

Emphasis mine Life, Fortune, and Sacred Honor

As an American warrior would write in a song nearly two hundred years later,

 

“These were men, America’s best.”

Life, Liberty, and Property: Part II

And so, continuing from yesterday.

And what did they create? The last greatest hope of private property on earth. Is it important? You tell me. What has America meant to the word in the last 242 years? Do you suppose concepts like individual freedom, equality before the law, the right to earn what you are worth, freedom of speech, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom from illegal search and seizure, freedom of religion, and all those other things we believe in, resonate in the rest of the world? If they don’t, how did America become the beacon of freedom to men all over the world? Why isn’t it the French Dream?

You know they do, and they are all based in the right to private property. Private property is nothing less than a subset of a man’s right to himself. Private property, whether it is your house or Sam Walton‘s Wal-Mart, is nothing less than Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand made visible. It is what the market has decided that your work, your creativity, your skills, your thoughts, your determination are worth to the rest of us. It is completely objective. If I think Wal-Mart shirts are better than K-Mart shirts and most people agree; K-Mart will have to reduce the price of their shirts till we think they are worth the price asked. It really is that simple and elegant.

Capitalism is individual freedom and private property in action; nothing more and nothing less. Freedom of the individual is inconceivable without capitalism. America became the Indispensable Nation late in the 19th Century and we still are but, we have been coasting since at least the 50′s. That’s when in Ben Franklin’s words we began selling our freedom for some temporary safety, not necessarily from foreign invaders but from being responsible for ourselves.

America really is the Old West: The timid never started (they’re still in Europe, or the rest of the world), the weak died and the strong survived and thrived. That’s the real world, my friends. If you don’t work, neither shall you eat is the other quote. Someone should tell our occupiers (or maybe their parents). What little I have, I worked hard for. If you want what I have you can damn well work too. Don’t send the sheriff with his gun to take it for you, I earned it, you can, too. I earned the right to keep it, too. (Rant over, for now!)

But if you followed the link yesterday, you now realize that John Locke, who wrote the book on most of this, was, and most conservatives still are, exceptionally charitable. What angers most of us is being forced at the point of a gun (otherwise known as government) to contribute to schemes that do not and can not work. You will also find that much of our charitable work is to support those who are down on their luck, for cause, usually, not those who are looking for a free ride.

What else over the years has made America different? Honest justice has. One had a very reasonable chance of getting actual justice in an American court, until recently, anyway. How does this tie in? This way: if the courts (backed by the police or army) are corrupt, if you don’t suck up to the right people, you have no chance of keeping your property.

This is a critical point if you are Henry Ford and you just started producing the Model T, what would you do if Louis Chevrolet took Ford Motor Company away from you in a corrupt court? Raise money to build the Model A? I wouldn’t, I’d probably give up and make enough to feed my family and let the dream go. Think it doesn’t happen? It does, all over the world, all the time, that’s what started the Arab Spring. That’s also what happened to the bondholders in General Motors and Chrysler in the bailouts.

The way wealth is created is this: The creator of that wealth, owns it, to do with as he will. If he wants more, he invests it, thereby creating more wealth (and jobs!) if he doesn’t, well that’s up to him, it’s his wealth. He nearly always does, though, greed works for the common good, after all.

One more thing on property, don’t forget intellectual property when you are thinking about this. Giving a starving man a fish is good. What’s far better is teaching him to fish, knowing how to catch a fish is a very elementary piece of intellectual property. Knowing how to fish may not only feed you but, feed your family and maybe village too. That intellectual property in action. And more than a few fortunes have been founded on fishing, by the way.

What started me down this road, yet again? I was reading the other day over at Greenmountainscribes, their article on An Effective Campaign to Eradicate Poverty and I was struck by this passage:

Frankly there is not much new in this type of activity. For more than fifty years governments and charities have been focused on rushing aid to the poor and starving. Yet none of these efforts address the basic reason poverty exists in the first place. The solutions which call for more and more aid simply respond to the visual effects of poverty such as starvation, ignorance and poor health. None truly address the cause. As a result, rather than easing the situation, the number of poor continue to grow.

Most of the current anti-poverty efforts focus on redistributing funds from wealthier nations to poorer ones, either through mandatory taxation or charitable donations. This system ignores the fact that tomorrow the poor need to be fed again. Taxpayers or the voluntary donor must dig into his own funds yet again to help. The process is repeated daily, each time the poor recipient is only temporarily helped, as the tax payer or the donor become poorer themselves. Meanwhile, as massive funds are moved in and out of governments, bureaucracies are institutionalized to run the system. More and more money goes to feed the machinery of poverty than gets into the hands of the intended poor. Such a system sustains poverty rather than eradicates it.

I highly recommend that you read the entire article. [It is now a protected blog, so you’ll have to make do with this excerpt.] They do an extraordinary job of dissecting the problems in welfare programs (nationally and internationally) and proposing an effective solution.

I don’t really think Sudan needs “Black Friday”, but they’d probably like to feed their families.

%d bloggers like this: