Cassius

This is an obvious subject that many people consider from time to time. It has been widely stated, by others and myself, that they would not approve of many things. However, the extent to which they would disapprove with what our government has become has escaped me until recently. I found the following quotes from many of the great men that lived at that time, and was astounded to how relevant the warnings they gave were to modern issues. Would anyone care to comment on how applicable these quotes are, why we have abandoned some of the values that our country began with, and what, if anything, we can do about it (other than write our congresspersons)?

I found these quotes to be simultaneously illuminating and disconcerting:

These last two quotes seem to clearly indicate that the founding fathers had no intention of the federal government being involved in social issues concerning citizens, including social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, education, income redistribution, entitlements, unemployment insurance, farm subsidies, housing, flood insurance, etc.
Amazing clairvoyance, eh? I thought the economy would almost have been overlooked by the founding fathers, but apparently not...
This we all know, but it is good to have a reminder once in a while.
Remember, our country was founded as a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
World police, anyone? Regime change, anyone?
More warning against foreign entanglements...
This one was particularly striking to me. Isn't that what our government has become? They have learned that, through debt, they can spend as much as they want. This attitude about economic matters has trickled down to the familial level, so that household debt is rapidly becoming as bad as government debt.
Never heard of this one before, but now I know why everyone considers the founding fathers' opinion so important!
Hmmm....
Wow, if only Washington was still alive to give a talking-to to our modern-day politicians...
I've spoken before of how our the gap between the haves and have-nots in our society is widening, and widening at an ever-quicker pace. I don't think it will be many decades since before we only have two classes left, those who are financially free and those who are permanently bonded into the servitude of being financial slaves their entire lives. There is no "middle class" anymore, or at least there won't be for much longer.
Isn't that the truth. Not just on economic matters, but on all matters political. Keeping the wool on the eyes of the American sheeple (*cough* sorry, I mean American public) seems to be one of the highest priorities of politicians today.

I'll conclude with a graph, the meaning of which I will let you interpret for yourselves:

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }

Plainsman1963

I think they would say "we had a revolution way before it ever got to this point".

CheebaMonkey

LOL Plains!!! I agree.

__________________

Ron Bennett

Very informative post!

In regards to the part about "private banks", most Americans would be surprised to learn the Federal Reserve (FED) is actually a private owned corporation ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

(an excerpt from the above regarding the FED being a private corporation)

A revolution is unlikely anytime soon ... what is more likely, is an even more controlled, restricted society...

One or two more major attacks like 911, and one can count on immediate martial law and all that comes with it ... ie. extreme curtailing of civil rights, no federal elections, etc for an extended, indefinitely period...

It's no accident there's a push on immigration lately ... yes, it's being used as a political "wedge" issue for sure, but it goes deeper than that ... the ultimate goal is track everyone in the U.S. so as to monitor and restrict their movements - ie. the Real ID act that recently became law...

Anyone who drives a lot in southern states near the Mexican border (and some folks on the northern border too) are likely very familiar with "internal checkpoints" ... in addition travel from some states to others is also restricted - ie. "agricultural" checkpoints on some parts of the California border ... umm, what's the real purpose of those? ... not to keep bad fruit, etc out, but rather a pretext to monitor those who come in; search their vehicles, etc...

Digressed a bit there ... let's look at this way ... what's changed between 1960 and today:

* 1960: No internal checkpoints (from what I recall, they didn't come into being till the 1970s)

* 1960: A driver license ID was rarely asked for other than when one was pulled over for a traffic stop; ID checks for anything else, such as going into bars was far less common.

* 1960: Social security number was rarely asked for; it had little meaning anyways, so even if one's number was "stolen" it was inconsequential anyways; many people back then, unless they worked, didn't have a social security number ... heck, me (and I'm only 34 now) didn't get my social security number until I was 16 ... contrast that to today where children are assigned a social security number practically from birth.

* 1960: No metal detectors at the airport, no bag searches, etc. Further, most airlines of the time had very few baggage restrictions - people could bring on board most anything.

* 1960: No id required to fly; exchanging tickets with others was ok, etc - and that was true as late as the 1980s; some have told me that was even true into the 90s ... wow, how things have changed so fast.

I could go on and on...

And then of course there's the drug war, and all the other things the government does that go against the Constitution and basic natural human rights ... and yet the vast majority of Americans don't appear at all motivated to protest let alone do anything, even if things get worse; as long as they have cable tv, internet, etc they're happy ... so anyone counting on a revolution happening will be waiting a long time, as in the next lifetime ...

On the otherhand, perhaps Americans will soon rise up ... time will tell.

Ron

__________________
cann.com

Higher Logic

Great post, Cass I always wonder what it would be like if the founding fathers could talk to us today, would be argue with them, or just dismiss their ramblings?

__________________
Crucial Web Hosting · Garden's Cure · Marijuana Recipes · Drug Testing Facts

Dilution · Substitution · Urine Testing · Hair Testing · Drug Testing FAQ

MrIMStoned

Maybe I'm mistaken but everyone is assigned a number at birth. Your "getting" your number is just you being informed what number you were given at birth. Also it's common for children to wait until there teens to inquire about their number when they want to get a job.

__________________
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

MrIMStoned

"Think of your forefathers! Think of your posterity!" John Quincy Adams

Sec

Your parents register you with Social Security shortly after your are born. They then use that number to file their taxes naming you as a dependent. You are not automatically assigned a number. Since your parents have been using that number since you were a dependent, you would only need to ask your parents for your card and/or number when you begin working.

At least, that is how I think it works. I haven't had a child born for a quarter of a century, so it's been awhile for me.

__________________
Guidelines.
Search
http://www.marijuana.com/drug-test/index

dedbr

"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. They are always opressive."
Thomas Jefferson.

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the constitution inhibit the governments ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantee's."
William Jefferson Clinton, August 12, 1993

"Even the most normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats."
Mencken


I think I've said this before, but I would be real careful how I talked to the old timers if I was some panty waste, dribble talking, Constitution changing, pansy kinda, person, because if I remember correctly, these guys had just fought a war with the big guys on the block, and weren't taking no shiite from nobody, and I don't think they'd think much of nothing we got going on today. Period.

As a matter of fact, they might just be passing the ammo out and printing the flyers....oh yeah....sending out those e mails.....I keep forgetting, the information age.....


These were men who had pretty strong opinions, and shot you if you disagreed. I doubt whether they would of liked changes....


As a matter of fact....


"Those who would sacrifice essential liberty to secure a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin


Ya know what I really hate? When someone says, "Oh, they wouldn't say that if they were alive today."

Nope. Your Right. They'd probably say something like, "Give me a knife, I'm gutting this fool before he can breed any more of his kind to pollute the face of the earth....,"

Or something like that. I'm not right on the button on that one probably....


Somewhere in Ded Land

__________________
Though my soul may set in darkness,
It will rise in perfect light.
I have loved the stars too fondly,
To be fearful of the night." Sarah Williams

Our Posting Guidelines (Check 'em Out!.....)

Murdock

History is not without a sense of irony... The founders rebelled against one King George, to only have him replaced by another..

Seriously though, all 3 branches of government have gone rogue.. Congress will not hold the Executive branch accountable, meanwhile the Executive (Bush) hasn't veto'ed a single bill since assuming the office of President.. all the while the Judicial is legislating from the bench.. The whole system is out of whack..

I am convinced that single party control over all 3 branches is a negative, because legislators and judges elevate party loyalty over their constitutional duty to act as checks and balances of each other.