Quantcast
Connect with us

Rand Paul’s first two books are littered with fake Thomas Jefferson quotes

Published

on

Kentucky senator and Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul’s first two books contain several statements falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson and other historical figures, Buzzfeed reported.

Records from the Thomas Jefferson Foundation indicate that “there is no evidence” Jefferson was responsible for five statements Paul included in his work, and that two other statements were taken out of context.

ADVERTISEMENT

For example, Paul claimed to cite Jefferson while criticizing the Patriot Act in his 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington.

“This sort of invasiveness is also precisely the reason we have a Second Amendment protecting our right to keep and bear arms,” he wrote at the time. “Or as Jefferson wrote ‘The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.'”

But according to the Jefferson Foundation, “this quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson,” though it is allegedly often paired with the phrase, “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms,” which is taken from his draft of the Virginia state constitution.

Paul explains his opposition to the Affordable Care Act in the same book in part by stating, “When Thomas Jefferson wrote that a ‘government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have,’ he could have easily been referencing Obamacare.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The foundation noted that, while the quote has appeared in print as far back as 1953, it was not attributed to Jefferson — erroneously — until 2005.

“Neither this quotation nor any of its variant forms has been found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson,” the foundation stated, adding that it “became a popular saying among Republican politicians” after being copyrighted in 1957 by the General Features Corporation.

According to Buzzfeed, Paul also mischaracterized a statement by Benjamin Franklin in not only that book, but his follow-up, Government Bullies.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Who’s to say the Tea Party won’t become the government’s next target under the PATRIOT Act?” Paul stated in the first book. “Benjamin Franklin once wrote, ‘They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety,’ and Americans who continue to support unconstitutional intrusions into the private lives of their fellow citizens will inevitably learn the same lesson.”

But, as NPR reported this past March, Franklin’s words are frequently taken out of context, since he was writing in support of defense spending and taxation in a dispute between Pennsylvania lawmakers and relatives of the Penn family, the “proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony.”

“The legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War,” Brookings Institute senior fellow Benjamin Wittes told NPR. “And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly’s acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The senator has also attributed the following statement to George Washington: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force … Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” However, editors at the Yale Book of Quotations have stated that there is no evidence that Washington ever made the “undoubtedly apocryphal” quote.

Paul has come under criticism for his sourcing before. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow ridiculed him on-air in October 2013 after portions of one of his speeches appeared to have been copied from the Wikipedia page for the film Gattaca.

He later blamed the criticism on “haters,” without mentioning Maddow by name.

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Alternet 2020

Nancy Pelosi faces serious challenges — but she’s failed miserably in two key ways

Published

on

As I wrote earlier this week, with its muddled messaging on impeachment, the House Democratic leadership may have figured out a way of both demoralizing the Democratic base and firing up Trump's supporters. It's a mess.

But fairness requires us to acknowledge an important fact: Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn't have the votes to launch an official impeachment process. And it's not close. At present, The Washington Post's tally finds 137 members of the House in favor of launching an impeachment inquiry, with 92 opposed and 6 others not taking a position. Leadership can twist arms on a close vote, but when you're close to 100 votes shy of a majority, it's impossible to whip a measure across the finish line--especially one of such consequence.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump’s anti-worker labor nominee is more like the ‘Secretary of Corporate Interests’

Published

on

Progressive groups and Democratic lawmakers expressed serious concerns Thursday about corporate attorney Eugene Scalia — President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Labor Department — as the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee met to consider his nomination.

"Instead of nominating a Secretary of Labor, President Trump has nominated a Secretary of Corporate Interests," declared Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the committee's ranking member. "If there's one consistent pattern in Mr. Scalia's long career, it's hostility to the very workers he would be charged with protecting, and the very laws he would be charged with enforcing if he were confirmed."

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Here are the specific charges Trump could face if the whistleblower report reaches prosecutors

Published

on

The exploding Ukrainian whistleblower scandal could once again throw President Donald Trump into legal turmoil, wrote former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade for The Daily Beast on Saturday.

Specifically, she argued, prosecutors could theoretically charge the president under federal bribery and extortion laws, based on the facts laid out by recent reporting.

"The facts here still need to be fleshed out, but the gist is easy enough to understand," wrote McQuade. "Trump allegedly has demanded that Ukraine launch an investigation into Biden if it wants to receive the military aid that has already been promised. If true, this conduct would be a classic abuse of power that is considered criminal when committed by a public official."

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Investigate and Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image