Politics

Ben Carson’s History Book Plagiarizes SocialismSucks.Net And Many Other Sources

“If it is determined that additional citations or attribution are required, the appropriate revisions will be made in subsequent printings,” said Carson’s literary agent. “We have been in contact with the author and agent and will work with them to review the given information,” said HarperCollins Christian publishing spokesman said.

Ben Carson Facebook

Several sections of potential Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson’s 2012 book America the Beautiful were plagiarized from various sources, BuzzFeed News has found.

In many cases Carson cites the works that he plagiarizes in endnotes, though he makes no effort to indicate that not just the source, but the words themselves, had been taken from different authors.

The case is similar to a 2013 report from BuzzFeed News that found Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul plagiarized in his book while citing the works he copied in the footnotes. Paul’s book was eventually updated to include attribution.

In one instance, Carson cites wholesale from an old website that has been online since at least 2002, Socialismsucks.net.

In another example, he plagiarizes from two authors whose works he mentions in passing at earlier points in the book: Cleon Skousen, a conservative historian who died in 2006, and Bill Federer, another conservative historian, who Carson thanks in the acknowledgements for helping get his book published.

Carson’s book sold less than 1,000 copies when it was first published in 2012, according to the New York Times’ 2013 profile of Carson. After his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013 exploded on YouTube the book sold 46,000 copies in six weeks, the Times reported.

Carson recently said a decision on a 2016 presidential run is coming before May, and has previously said “the chances are reasonably good” that he will run for president.

In a phone call, Federer told BuzzFeed News he did not care that Carson had copied from his book.

“That’s fine,” said Federer, who noted his book states he grants permission to duplicate text as long as proper attribution is given.

Federer told BuzzFeed News he had given Carson some of his books when they served together on the board of Regent University.

Besides being a historian, Federer is a former Republican congressional candidate from Missouri. Federer is the author of numerous books, such as Endangered Speeches — How the ACLU, IRS & LBJ Threaten Extinction of Free Speech, and Three Secular Reasons Why America Should be Under God.

“I gave him some of my books, and he was kind enough to give me an acknowledgement,” said Federer.

“Permission is granted to duplicate 10,000 words or less, provided acknowledgement is given to” Federer’s book, reads a line in the front matter of Federer’s book.

Sam Wells, the owner and creator of SocailismSucks.net, confirmed he wrote the text Carson plagiarized in his book.

“The comments at the bottom of the page are mine,” he told BuzzFeed News.

Other sources taken nearly verbatim include a CBS News article, a Liberty Institute press release, a local newspaper article, and various internet sites.

In Carson’s book, he writes about being caught plagiarizing in college and being given the chance to rewrite the paper after it was discovered.

Not long after that, when I was a psychology major delving into the mysteries of the human mind, I stepped unknowingly into yet another moral dilemma. During my research for one of the papers in an advanced psychology course, I found some passages that seemed particularly appropriate, and I included them in my writing. I did not, however, indicate that this was the work of someone else; frankly, I had never even heard of the term plagiarism. When the professor asked me to make an appointment to discuss my paper, I was befuddled . When I stepped into his office, however, I could immediately sense the weight of the moment. He pointed out that I had plagiarized and told me that the consequences for doing so normally included expulsion. I could see all of my dreams of becoming a doctor dashed by my stupidity. Even though I did not know the implications of plagiarism, I certainly should have known inherently that what I was doing was wrong. I had done it before without consequences and probably would have continued doing it if I had not been caught. Fortunately for me, the professor was very compassionate, realized that I was naïve, and gave me a chance to rewrite the paper. This raises another question: Is ignorance an acceptable excuse for unethical behavior?

“Alongside the author, we too take these matters very seriously. We have been in contact with the author and agent and will work with them to review the given information. We will respond as appropriate,” a spokesperson for HarperCollins Christian publishing spokesperson told BuzzFeed News responding on the behalf of HarperCollins and Zondervan, the HarperCollins Christian publishing division which published Carson’s work .

Carson’s representative Sealey Yates, who functions as his lawyer and literary agent, said they had “begun to review the materials” provided by BuzzFeed News but had “not been able to communicate with the publisher’s editorial staff.”

“If it is determined that additional citations or attribution are required, the appropriate revisions will be made in subsequent printings,” Yates said. “Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.”

Here’s socialismsucks.net in 2002:

Anytime you give to government the responsibility and authority to provide government-made jobs, old-age financial security, “free” health care, and “free” education and indoctrination of children, it will control the lives of the people who live under its jurisdiction, and individual liberty and freedom of choice are sacrificed.

Sure, security is important — but anyone can find security from a prison warden. But, despite socialist promises, bureaucratic programs of the poltiical [sic] state cannot guarantee security anyway. Instead the socialist state uses its coercive powers to seize the wealth and properties of those who have earned financial security by their own hands. Socialism does not help poor people; rather, socialism makes people poor so that they have to become dependent on the socialist state and therefore beholden to those in charge of the government. Socialism is the ultimate exploitative monopoly. No competitors (market alternatives) are allowed. All major industries, including food, banking, transportation, communication, and insurance are owned and operated as state monopolies.

Socialism is a system of authoritarian political control over the individual by bureaucratic central planners — very similar to fascism or communism. Socialism promises to use the power of the political state to forcibly redistribute resources (peoples’ earnings) so that the basic needs of all will be met. To do this, power must be centralized in the hands of the political state. When government has power over the lives and properties of its citizens, the citizens have no freedom — only the meagre privileges the state programs may dole out to them. In practice, socialism’s redistribution of wealth ends up with bureaucrats doling out poverty and dependency on the state.

If government could give you everything you want, it must have the power to take everything you’ve got. This is the real agenda of socialism. It is the confiscation of property in the name of a “fairer” distribution of it. It is the total political institutionalization of violence and exploitation in the name of abolishing exploitation.

Sure, there are several different brands of socialism — at least as many types as there are would-be people-planners who wish to impose their plans to control the moral and economic lives of other people. But are you willing to surrender your precious liberties to a Socialist State which promises “security” for everyone or government-enforced equality? Isn’t this what Hitler and other socialists promised the German people in his Nazi (national socialist) platform — a country in which government guarantees security and “equality” in exchange for giving up individual freedom? Will Americans continue to fall for the same scam?

Socialism is an old dream. Some dreams are nightmares when put into practice.

And here’s Carson:

In the previous chapter, we examined the enormous benefits to our country and to the world of an economic system (capitalism) that encourages innovation, hard work, and entrepreneurship. Now, after examining the pros and cons of socialism, we have seen mostly negative effects, even in terms of its lauded compassionate components, which seem good at first glance, but reveal disincentives to work and fiscal irresponsibility in the long run. Because we live in a free and open society, those who advocate socialism are free to do so, but for the well-read individual, it is easy to discern the agenda of the socialists and how they are implementing that agenda in an attempt to bring fundamental change to America. The agenda? Total government control. For jobs, income, you name it. Anytime you give to government the responsibility and authority to provide government-made jobs, old-age financial security, “free” health care, and “free” education and indoctrination of children, it will control the lives of the people who live under its jurisdiction, and individual liberty and freedom of choice are sacrificed.

Sure, there are several different brands of socialism — at least as many types as there are would-be people-planners who wish to impose their plans to control the moral and economic lives of other people. But are you willing to surrender your precious liberties to a socialist state which promises “security” for everyone and government-enforced equality? Isn’t this what Hitler and other socialists promised the German people in his Nazi (national socialist) platform — a country in which government guarantees security and “equality” in exchange for giving up individual freedom? Will Americans fall for the same scam?

Since Americans are by nature individualistic and entrepreneurial, by definition, then, the socialist program is anti-American, to say nothing of totalitarian.

Socialism is an old dream. Some dreams are nightmares when put into practice.

Here’s The Five Thousand Year Leap from W. Cleon Skousen.

There are many reasons why the Founders wanted a republican form of government rather than a democracy. Theoretically, a democracy requires the full participation of the masses of the people in the legislative or decision making processes of government. This has never worked because the people become so occupied with their daily tasks that they will not properly study the issues, nor will they take the time to participate in extensive hearings before the vote is taken. The Greeks tried to use democratic mass participation in the government of their city-states, and each time it ended in tyranny.

A democracy becomes increasingly unwieldy and inefficient as the population grows. A republic, on the other hand, governs through elected representatives and can be expanded indefinitely.

And here’s Carson:

Could a government’s power truly rest in the hands of the people? Could such an experiment really work? By definition, in legislative- and decision-making processes, a democracy requires full participation of all the people. But most people are so involved and preoccupied with daily duties and routines, they have neither the time nor energy to participate in hearings and study the issues sufficiently enough to prepare for a vote. Several times the ancient Greeks attempted to utilize democratic mass participation in governing their city-states, but each time it resulted in tyranny. As the population expands, a democracy becomes increasingly inefficient and rowdy.

Here’s another section of The Five Thousand Year Leap in which Carson takes two sections from Skousen, rearranges the words slightly, plagiarizes and paraphrases, and takes Skousen’s footnotes:

Characteristics of Anglo-Saxon Common Law or People’s Law

Here are the principal points of People’s Law as practiced by the Anglo-Saxons: [Footnote 2: “2. See Colin Rhys LoveIl, English Constitutional and Legal History, Oxford University Press, New York, 1962, pp. 3-50.”]

1. They considered themselves a commonwealth of freemen.

2. All decisions and the selection of leaders had to be with the consent of the people, preferably by full consensus, not just a majority.

3. The laws by which they were governed were considered natural laws given by divine dispensation, and were so well known by the people they did not have to be written down.

4. Power was dispersed among the people and never allowed to concentrate in any one person or group. Even in time of war, the authority granted to the leaders was temporary and the power of the people to remove them was direct and simple.

5. Primary responsibility for resolving problems rested first of all with the individual, then the family, then the tribe or community, then the region, and finally, the nation.

6. They were organized into small, manageable groups where every adult had a voice and a vote. They divided the people into units of ten families who elected a leader; then fifty families who elected a leader; then a hundred families who elected a leader; and then a thousand families who elected a leader.

7. They believed the rights of the individual were considered unalienable and could not be violated without risking the wrath of divine justice as well as civil retribution by the people’s judges.

8. The system of justice was structured on the basis of severe punishment unless there was complete reparation to the person who had been wronged. There were only four “crimes” or offenses against the whole people. These were treason, by betraying their own people; cowardice, by refusing to fight or failing to fight courageously; desertion; and homosexuality. These were considered capital offenses. All other offenses required reparation to the person who had been wronged.

9. They always attempted to solve problems on the level where the problem originated. If this was impossible they went no higher than was absolutely necessary to get a remedy. Usually only the most complex problems involving the welfare of the whole people, or a large segment of the people, ever went to the leaders for solution.

And here’s Carson:

In Anglo-Saxon Common Law, as in the Israeli setup, the people were a commonwealth of freemen. Every adult had a voice and vote, and the groups of families were organized in units of ten, each with an elected leader. Like the Israelis, those leaders had representatives from their groups that met on a higher level, and attempts were always made to solve problems on the level where the problem originated. It was systems such as these that inspired our nation’s founding fathers to promote not only cooperation, but widespread participation. [Footnote 2: “2. Colin Rhys Lovell, English Constitutional and Legal History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962), 3 – 50.”]

Here’s the section in Skousen’s book that follows the above passage:

The Founders Note the Similarities Between Anglo-Saxon Common Law and the People’s Law of Ancient Israel

As the Founders studied the record of the ancient Israelites they were intrigued by the fact that they also operated under a system of laws remarkably similar to those of the Anglo-Saxons. The two systems were similar both in precept and operational structure. In fact, the Reverend Thomas Hooker wrote the “Fundamental Orders of Connecticut” based on the principles recorded by Moses in the first chapter of Deuteronomy. These “Fundamental Orders” were adopted in 1639 and constituted the first written constitution in modern times. This constitutional charter operated so successfully that it was adopted by Rhode Island. When the English colonies were converted over to independent states, these were the only two states which had constitutional documents which readily adapted themselves to the new order of self-government. All of the other states had to write new constitutions.

Here are the principal characteristics of the People’s Law in ancient Israel which were almost identical with those of the Anglo-Saxons:

1. They were set up as a commonwealth of freemen. A basic tenet was: “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.” (Leviticus 25:10)

This inscription appears on the American Liberty Bell.

Whenever the Israelites fell into the temptation to have slaves or bond-servants, they were reprimanded. Around 600 B.C., a divine reprimand was given through Jeremiah: “Ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming liberty every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbor: behold, I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the Lord.” (Jeremiah 34:17)

2. All the people were organized into small manageable units where the representative of each family had a voice and a vote. This organizing process was launched after Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, saw him trying to govern the people under Ruler’s Law. (See Exodus 18:13-26.)

When the structure was completed the Israelites were organized as follows:

Moses

V.P. (Aaron) And V.P. (Joshua)

A Senate or Council of 70

A Congress of Elected Representatives

1000 Families

100 Families

50 Families

10 Families

Single family

3. There was specific emphasis on strong, local self-government.

Problems were solved to the greatest possible extent on the level where they originated.

The record says: “The hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.” (Exodus 18:26)

4. The entire code of justice was based primarily on reparation to the victim rather than fines and punishment by the commonwealth. (Reference to this procedure will be found in Exodus, chapters 21 and 22.) The one crime for which no “satisfaction” could be given was first-degree murder. The penalty was death. (See Numbers 35:31.)

5. Leaders were elected and new laws were approved by the common consent of the people. (See 2 Samuel 2:4; 1 Chronicles 29:22; for the rejection of a leader, see 2 Chronicles 10:16; for the approval of new laws, see Exodus 19:8.)

6. Accused persons were presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Evidence had to be strong enough to remove any question of doubt as to guilt. Borderline cases were decided in favor of the accused and he was released. It was felt that if he were actually guilty, his punishment could be left to the judgment of God in the future life.

And here’s the paragraph from Carson’s that precedes it:

Many nations, such as ancient Israel and the medieval English, made admirable attempts at establishing fair and peaceful societies. Their principal idea was to allow the people to govern themselves as much as possible. Ancient Israeli government, for example, was set up as a commonwealth of freemen. “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof,” reads Leviticus 25:10, in celebration of the Year of Jubilee. Their basic belief was that all men should be free, and the founding fathers of our nation echoed that belief by having this same verse inscribed on the Liberty Bell. The people of ancient Israel were organized into small groups of families, and each of those families had a voice and vote in that group through a representative. Representatives of those groups reported to a higher-level group, and this continued until you reached the topmost governing level. Strong, local government to solve problems on the level at which they occurred kept the number of cases that rose to the highest level to a manageable number. (“The hard causes they brought unto Moses,” reads Exodus 18:26, “but every small matter they judged themselves.”) They focused on reparation to the victim rather than punishment or fines levied on the perpetrator, and common consent of the people was necessary for new laws and elections (or rejections) of leaders. The accused were presumed innocent until evidence revealed beyond a shadow of a doubt their guilt. In rare, borderline cases, the decision was made in favor of the accused with the mind-set that if he had actually committed the crime, that punishment could be left to God in the afterlife.

Here’s a May 2011 Liberty Institute press release:

Morgan v. Plano Independent School District, known nationwide as the “candy cane” case, involves several students who were denied their free speech rights and who were discriminated against because their speech was religious in nature, including a young boy who was singled out and banned from handing out candy cane pens with a religious message at his class “winter” party, a little girl who was threatened for handing out tickets after school to a religious play, and an entire class of kids who were forbidden from writing “Merry Christmas” on holiday cards to American troops serving overseas. On appeal, the government officials are now arguing that elementary students are too young to have First Amendment rights.

And here’s Carson:

In the Morgan v. Plano Independent School District case, also known as the “candy cane” case, several students were denied their free speech rights and discriminated against because their speech was religious in nature. A young boy was singled out and banned from handing out candy cane pens with a religious message at his class “winter” party. This case also includes a little girl who was threatened for handing out tickets after school to a religious play, and an entire class of kids was forbidden from writing “Merry Christmas” on holiday cards to American troops serving overseas. The government officials who appealed the ruling are now arguing that elementary students are too young to have First Amendment rights.

Here’s Rick Aharon Chaimberlin on Haym Salomon:

As a demonstration of his sincerity, Salomon offered his fortune of 600,000 pounds sterling to begin the American Revolution. This would be several million dollars in modern US currency, an immense fortune at the time.

And here’s Carson:

Salomon volunteered his own fortune of 600,000 pounds sterling to begin the American Revolution — which today would be several million dollars, an immense fortune.

Here’s Chaimberlin again:

Salomon also solicited every able-bodied Jewish man to fight in Washington’s army. After the war, he organized the first American veterans’ organization, “The Jewish War Veterans,” which is still active today.

And here’s Carson:

Salomon also solicited every able-bodied Jewish man to fight in Washington’s army. After the war, he organized the first American veterans’ organization, “The Jewish War Veterans,” which is still active today.

Here’s Thomas Horton in a local newspaper in 2010.

Solomon proved his worth as a spy for Washington as well as a finance man. On several occasions Solomon was captured by the British and he used his commanding knowledge of European languages to talk his way, or bribe his way out of prison. Reputedly, he persuaded over 500 Hessian soldiers to desert the British cause for the American side.

And here’s Carson:

Salomon also proved his worth as a spy for George Washington as well as a finance man when he was captured by the British. When he noticed the British soldiers didn’t speak German, and the German mercenaries who had been hired by the Brits didn’t speak English, he informed the Brits of his knowledge of languages, without actually offering to translate. (He did not want to be seen as a Loyalist.) While interpreting, he then persuaded over five hundred Hessian soldiers from Germany to desert the British cause for the American side!

Here’s 2010 CBS News article:

Last month, a U.S. District Judge in Wisconsin ruled that the government-sanctioned event, established by Congress and marked with a proclamation from the president, is unconstitutional.

And here’s Carson:

However, in April 2010, US district judge Barbara Crabb in Wisconsin ruled that the government-sanctioned National Day of Prayer, established by Congress and supported with a proclamation from the president, is unconstitutional.

Here’s CBS News again:

Crabb’s decision resulted from a lawsuit filed by a group of atheists and agnostics called the Freedom From Religion Foundation, who complained that the government did not have the right to tell them to pray.

And here’s Carson:

The judge in this case was responding to a lawsuit filed by a group of atheists and agnostics called the Freedom from Religion Foundation. They complained that the government did not have the right to tell them to pray, but perhaps they didn’t notice that prayer was not a requirement, but rather a suggestion.

Here’s Bill Federer in America’s God and Country:

The account of George Washington at the Battle at the Monongahela was included in student textbooks in America until 1934. During the French & Indian War, George Washington fought alongside of the British General Edward Braddock. On July 9, 1755, the British were on the way to Fort Duquesne, when the French surprised them in an ambush attack.

The British, who were not accustomed to fighting unless in an open field, were being annihilated. Washington rode back and forth across the battlefield delivering General Braddock’s orders. As the battle raged, every officer on horseback, except Washington, was shot down, until even General Braddock was killed, at which point the troops fled in confusion. After the battle, on July 18, 1755, Washington wrote to his brother, John A. Washington:

But by the all-powerful dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability or expectation; for I had four bullets through my coat, and two horses shot under me, yet escaped unhurt, although death was leveling my companions on every side of me!

Fifteen years later, Washington and Dr. Craik, a close friend of his from his youth, were traveling through those same woods near the Ohio river and Great Kanawha river. They were met by an old Indian chief, who addressed Washington through an interpreter:

“I am a chief and ruler over my tribes. My influence extends to the waters of the great lakes and to the far blue mountains.

I have traveled a long and weary path that I might see the young warrior of the great battle. It was on the day when the white man’s blood mixed with the streams of our forests that I first beheld this chief [Washington].

I called to my young men and said, mark yon tall and daring warrior? He is not of the red-coat tribe he hath an Indian’s wisdom, and his warriors fight as we do himself alone exposed.

Quick, let your aim be certain, and he dies. Our rifles were leveled, rifles which, but for you, knew not how to miss ‘twas all in vain, a power mightier far than we, shielded you.

Seeing you were under the special guardianship of the Great Spirit, we immediately ceased to fire at you. I am old and soon shall be gathered to the great council fire of my fathers in the land of shades, but ere I go, there is something bids me speak in the voice of prophecy:

Listen! The Great Spirit protects that man [pointing at Washington], and guides his destinies he will become the chief of nations, and a people yet unborn will hail him as the founder of a mighty empire. I am come to pay homage to the man who is the particular favorite of Heaven, and who can never die in battle.”

The famous Indian warrior, who was in that battle, said:

“Washington was never born to be killed by a bullet! I had seventeen fair fires at him with my rifle, and after all could not bring him to the ground!”

And here’s Carson:

The founding father of our country was definitely a believer in the God of the Bible, a man not only of tremendous intellect, but of conscience, caring, dedication, and faith. And his faith was founded on experience. One particularly interesting account occurred on July 9, 1755, during the French and Indian War. George Washington was with the British troops under General Edward Braddock on their way to Fort Duquesne when they were ambushed by the French. The Brits were being slaughtered since they were only accustomed to fighting in open fields. To deliver orders from General Braddock to the troops, Washington rode horseback back and forth across the battle. Every other officer on horseback, except Washington, was shot down. Even General Braddock was killed, at which point the troops fled in confusion. After the battle, on July 18, 1755, Washington wrote to his brother, John A. Washington: “But by the all-powerful dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability or expectation; for I had four bullets through my coat, and two horses shot under me, yet escaped unhurt, although death was leveling my companions on every side of me!”

Fifteen years later, Washington and Dr. Craik, a close friend of his from his youth, were traveling through those same woods near the Ohio River and Great Kanawha River. There they were met by an old Indian chief, who addressed Washington through an interpreter:

I am a chief and ruler over my tribes. My influence extends to the waters of the great lakes and to the far blue mountains. I have traveled a long and weary path that I might see the young warrior of the great battle. It was on the day when the white man’s blood mixed with the streams of our forests that I first beheld this chief [Washington]. I called to my young men and said, mark yon tall and daring warrior? He is not of the red-coat tribe — he hath an Indian’s wisdom and his warriors fight as we do — himself alone exposed. Quick, let your aim be certain, and he dies. Our rifles were leveled, rifles which, but for you, knew not how to miss — ‘twas all in vain, a power mightier far than we, shielded you. Seeing you were under the special guardianship of the Great Spirit, we immediately ceased to fire at you. I am old and soon shall be gathered to the great council fire of my fathers in the land of shades, but ere I go, there is something bids me speak in the voice of prophecy: Listen! The Great Spirit protects that man [pointing at Washington], and guides his destinies — he will become the chief of nations, and a people yet unborn will hail him as the founder of a mighty empire. I am come to pay homage to the man who is the particular favorite of Heaven, and who can never die in battle.

A famous Indian warrior who was in that battle said, “Washington was never born to be killed by a bullet! I had seventeen fair fires at him with my rifle, and after all could not bring him to the ground!”

Why was this history removed from school textbooks, which had included it up until 1934? As incredible a story as it may seem, it demonstrates the effect of having faith in God — for a person or even for a country. As George Washington himself said, “It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors.

Here’s Federer again in America’s God and Country:

Baron Charles Louis Joseph de Secondat Montesquieu (1689-1755) was an authoritative French professor, author and legal philosopher, who, in 1748, wrote the highly influential book, The Spirit of the Laws. This book greatly impacted the formation of the American government, as it was read and studied intently in America. In reviewing nearly 15,000 items written by the Founding Fathers, (including newspaper articles, monographs, books, pamphlets, etc.), Baron Charles Montesquieu was the most frequently quoted source next to the Bible.

Montesquieu’s philosophy was based on the premise that humanity is basically selfish, and, opportunity provided, individuals would accumulate more and more power unto themselves, eventually becoming despots. This reflected the concept of the fallen nature of man expressed in Jeremiah 17:9:

The heart it deceitful above all things and desperately wicked: who can know it?

In order to prevent the accumulation of power, Montesquieu proposed separating the powers of government into three branches and pitting them against each other, allowing the greed and ambition of one to check the greed and ambition of the others. This idea of dividing a monarch’s power into Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches reflected Isaiah 33:22:

For the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King.

And here’s Carson (in this case, Carson does put one sentence highlighted in bold in the middle from Federer in quotes but plagiarizes the other two cases):

The idea of having three branches of government was birthed by the writings of Baron Charles Montesquieu, an authoritative French professor, author, and legal philosopher — who was the most often quoted source among the colonists next to the Bible.* His book The Spirit of Laws “greatly impacted the formation of the American government, as it was read and studied intently in America.”** In it, Montesquieu acknowledges the deceit and wickedness of the human heart, as shown in Jeremiah 17:9, and advocates for a system that tries to check and moderate mankind’s worse excesses by dividing power into three parts, inspired by Isaiah 33:22, which states, “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king.”

Check out more articles on BuzzFeed.com!

 
 

More News

More News

Now Buzzing