 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I wrote "Honest" I did not write "Accurate".
If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no Nafta, Gatt, or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; and no income tax. We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited.
That system is called liberty. It's what the Founding Fathers gave us. Under liberty, we built the greatest, freest, most prosperous, most decent country on earth. It's no coincidence that the monstrous growth of the federal government has been accompanied by a sickening decline in living standards and moral standards. The feds want us to be hamsters on a treadmill—working hard, all day long, to pay high taxes, but otherwise entirely docile and controlled. The huge, expensive, and out-of-control leviathan that we call the federal government wants to run every single aspect of our lives.
See:
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Proceedings-Debates-Constitutional-Convention/dp/1410203638/ref=sr_11_1/104-0686311-9151953?ie=UTF8
"That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under the pretence of forming a government for free States."
"The same reasons, which you now urge for destroying our present federal government, may be urged for abolishing the system, which you now propose to adopt; and, as the method prescribed by the articles of confederation is now totally disregarded by you, as little regard may be shown by you to the rules prescribed for the amendment of the new system, whenever, having obtained power by the government, you shall hereafter be pleased either to discard it entirely, or so to alter it as to give yourselves all that superiority, which you have now contended for, and to obtain which you have shown yourselves disposed to hazard the Union."
"Viewing it as a national, not a federal government, as calculated and designed not to protect and preserve, but to abolish and annihilate the State governments, it was opposed for the follow reasons. It was said, that this continent was much to extensive for one national government, which should have sufficient power and energy to pervade and hold in obedience and subjection all its parts, consistent with the enjoyment of preservation of liberty; that the genius and habits of the people of America were opposed to such a government. That, during the4ir connexion with Great Britain, they had been accustomed to have all their concerns transacted within a narrow circle, their colonial district; they had been accustomed to have their seats of government near them, to which they might have access, without much inconvenience, when their business should require it. That, at this time, we find, if a country is rather large, the people complain of the inconvenience, and clamor for a division of their country, or for a removal of the place where their courts are held, so as to render it more central and convenient. That, in those States, the territory of which is extensive, as soon as the population increases remote from the seat of government, the inhabitants are urgent for the removal of the seat of government, or to be erected into a new State. AS proof of this, the inhabitants of western parts of Virginia and North Carolina, of Vermont and the province of Maine, were instances; even the inhabitants of the western parts of Pennsylvania, who, it is said, already seriously look forward to the time when they shall either be erected into a new State, or have their seat of government removed of the Susquehanna. If the inhabitants of the different States consider it as a grievance to attend a country court, or the seat of their own government, when a little inconvenient, can it be supposed they would ever submit to have a national government established, the seat of which would be more than a thousand miles removed from some of them?
“It was insisted, that governments of republican nature are those best calculated to preserve the freedom and happiness of the citizen; that governments of this kind are only calculated for a territory but small in its extent; that the only method by which an extensive continent like American could be connected and united together, consistent with the principles of freedom, must be by having a number of strong and energetic State governments for securing and protecting the rights of individuals forming those governments, and for regulating all their concerns; and a strong, energetic federal government over those States, for the protection and preservation, and for regulating the common concerns of the State. It was further insisted, that, even if it was possible to effect a total abolition of the State governments at this time, and to establish one general government over the people of America, it could not long subsist, but in a little time would again be broken into a variety of governments of smaller extent, similar, in some manner, to the present situation of this continent; the principle difference, in all probability, would be, that the governments so established, being affected by some violent convulsion, might not be formed on principles so favorable to liberty as those of our present State governments. That this ought to be an important consideration to such of he States as had excellent governments, which was the case with Maryland and most others, whatever it might be to persons, who, disapproving of their particular State government, would be willing to hazard every thing to overturn and destroy it. These reasons, Sir, influence me to vote against two branches in the legislature, and against every part of the system which was repugnant to the principles of a federal government. Nor was there a single argument urged, or reason assigned, which to my mind was satisfactory, to prove, that a good government on federal principles was unattainable; the whole of their arguments only proving, what none of us controverted, that our federal government, as originally formed, was defective, and wanted amendment. However, a majority of the convention hastily and inconsiderately, without condescending to make a fair trial, in their great wisdom decided, that a kind of government, which a Moutesquieu and a Price have declared the best calculated of any to preserve internal liberty, and to enjoy external strength and security, and the only one by which a large continent can be connected and united, consistently with the principles of liberty, was totally impracticable; and they acted accordingly.”
That is a small sample of the words spoke out against turning the country into one Corporate Nation State.
What do we have now?
I’m telling you, dear reader, with words written in secret meetings over 200 years ago that the design of the Constitution we now disregard was, in fact, designed to arrive where we are now.
Friends of liberty knew it then and friends of liberty like the distinguished gentleman from Texas do not know it now – or our friend of liberty from Texas has stepped into the political realm in favor of statesmanship i.e. he is not telling the whole truth.
I could quote more words from “OUR founders” and particularly the words of Alexander Hamilton HOWEVER it is up to the friends of liberty to know and not up to me to dictate.
Liberty demands a curious desire for accurate information. We in American have that in our bones, in our genes, and the sooner ‘we the people’ access that power the sooner America will be a force for liberty.
It is always a good time to learn because the odds of moving in the right direction increase.
Ignore at your own cost.
Last edited on Sat Oct 14th, 2006 12:18 pm by Joe Kelley