This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Founding Fathers Tried to Warn Us About the Threat From a Two-Party System
Polls show that a
majority of Americans say that both the Republicans and Democrats are
doing such a poor job representing the people that a new, third party
is needed.
I've repeatedly warned that there is a scripted,
psuedo-war between Dems and Repubs, liberals and conservatives which is
in reality a false divide-and-conquer dog-and-pony show created by
the powers that be to keep the American people divided and
distracted. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.
In fact, the Founding Fathers warned us about the threat from a two party system.
John Adams said:
There
is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into
two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting
measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension,
is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
George Washington agreed, saying in his farewell presidential speech:
The
alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the
spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages
and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a
frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and
permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually
incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute
power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing
faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this
disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of
Public Liberty
Without looking forward to an extremity of this
kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the
common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to
make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and
restrain it.
It serves always to distract
the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It
agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms;
kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally
riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and
corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself
through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of
one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There
is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon
the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the
spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in
Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence,
if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the
popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not
to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will
always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there
being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of
public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched,
it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame,
lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
»
- advertisements -
He was a Freemason. had to obey orders.
Benedict Arnold was a Free Mason too.
His brothers hung him for treason.
Their power must have been different back then.
+1.
Washington should have stuck around one more term, till the parties solidified, got overconfident and then smacked them both around, showing what an executive is supposed to do. Instead of being a 100% insulated partisan.
In parlimentary systems, as mentioned by others, the prime minister is partisan, but if he acts totaly partisan, there can be votes of no confidence.
Kind of stings to see this and all their warnings ignored. They warned of complex banking institutions, of imperialism, of piling on each other in cities as in Europe, of centralized media, of debt and over spending and warned of large government..
It was all ignored under the guise of economic growth and misnomers such as 'rising living standards' .
The rich getting richer all the while.
"It was all ignored under the guise of economic growth and misnomers such as 'rising living standards' ."
BINGO! "Economic growth" is the cruelest hoax... and the Chamber of Commerce is the distribution channel (http://www.iccwbo.org/).
+ Infinity ...
Sambo, that is yet another UN agenda item... So you are pointing out a symptom of the problem... as we do with all local and national issues - but we never attempt to make the connect or start the discussion about the source... Which is the only way we can stop the problem...
GW (the 1st) was worried about ANY party. The US Constitution was not designed for such things. It separated the people from their representatives.
GW (the 2nd) is not describing any alternative to the first-around-the-post US-UK system.
Does he think any other system would sound alien to his readers?
The parlimentary system, that we install in every country we conquer, is an improvement on our system.
America has another 'two party' system that threatens its future:
http://health.msn.com/healthy-living/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=1002...
The Fat & The Non-fat....
It's off-topic, of course, but interestingly enough, there is some pretty strong evidence that the obesity epidemic and the myriad health problems that go with it are a result of government bungling as well. At least that's the case award winning science writer Gary Taubes makes in his books, the most recent being "
Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It"http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307272702
I picked it up at the library and was amazed at the dearth of evidence the government had when a political appointee came up with the original idea of promoting a low fat, high carb diet over the objections of many physicians and nutritionists at the time.
The research since then hasn't helped their cause either.
It may be no coincidence that the obesity epidemic exploded even as the number of health clubs and people running around in the equivalent of colorful underwear came out of nowhere and as physicians and media around the country exhorted people to cut fat out of their diets.
I picked a copy up at the library, was convinced, and switched to the Duke University low carb diet listed in the book and lost 6 1/2 lbs in less than two weeks and have dropped about 20 something overall so far while eating as much as I want at every meal.
Another good read on the subject of health and nutrition is Dr. Joel Fuhrman's Eat to Live. Answers a lot of questions, such as why it is that despite a clear association between vitamin A levels and cancer (people with high vitamin A levels have lower cancer levels), paradoxically, taking vitamin A supplements seems to actually exacerbate cancer. (Trials have had to be stopped because the groups taking vitamin A supplements were dying at greatly increased rates.) Well, you know what? There's actually a pretty simple and common sense reason for that (at least as explained by Dr. Fuhrman). The information in the book directly relates to preparedness for TEOTWAWKI: Good health and relatively inexpensive eating or even near self-sufficiency. Combine the information with that in Square Foot Gardening by Mel Barthalomew, and one doesn't need more than a normal backyard. If you're only concerned about losing weight, I've lost almost 20 pounds in just a couple of weeks, not been hungry, still drink wine, and had a rib eye steak on the 4th of July. (But just that once.) Unless you're a lot more patient than me, it's imperative to have a Vita-Mix or something like that that will allow one to consume whole mountains of fruit and vegetables quickly.
Thanks, MMP. I'll have to try and check those out.
It's interesting that both models seem to bring about weight loss, even though in significant respects they give almost the opposite advice.
It may well be that the major culprit here are the sugars and simple carbohydrates that are so common in the American diet. They all seem to agree on that point, as well as the highly processed foods.
I hope you're right. It would be simpler to be self-sufficient, or at least close to it that way.
FWIW, we started a small garden using the French Intensive Gardening method and it seems to work well, though I don't think our neighbors appreciate it too much, as most have their perfectly manicured lawns, sprinkler systems etc.
I think we'd have to expand it a LOT though if we really had to rely on it to survive. I don't see how we could do so in our suburban neighborhood without getting even more intensive with greenhouses, &/or indoor gardening over the winter, hot boxes etc.
Hopefully I'll get some good ideas from those books.
Coincidentally, from Drudge this morning:
Woman faces 93 days in jail for planting garden in front yard ...
http://www.theagitator.com/2011/07/07/does-michelle-obama-know-about-this/
(Looks like someone else may have been reading Mel Barthalomew's book.)
Dr. Fuhrman does not really seem to have a whole lot to say about carbohydrates per se, but he strongly recommends against all refined foods, including refined grains; ergo, what constitutes most carbohydrates for most of us.
Primarily, though, he is just death on animal foods: Meat, chicken, fish, cheese, eggs, milk. All of the things that I like, of course. (Really don't care that much about bread, although that Truckee Ciabatta [sp?] stuff ... .)
Fuhrman actually makes a pretty compelling case for why one should strictly limit, if not eliminate, animal based foods and oils from one's diet, which was advice, I have to admit, that I was not particularly predisposed to accept.
What I really found interesting about Fuhrman, though, was that his emphasis was on not just what one should not eat, but even more on what one should eat, and why, which built on my lay understanding of molecular biology, and its relationship to good health.
I have a feeling that Fuhrman's work will ultimately prove to be just the beginning in a line of research. Perhaps someday he will be referred to as "The Father of [whatever]."
My grocery bill has decreased meaningfully. I can see saving a thousand dollars over the next year. Maybe half. Maybe twice as much. Not sure. Never gave it as much thought as I should have, really.
Funny story on the lady being prosecuted for the garden in her front yard. Well, maybe not. Just another indication of the citizens' acceptance and even embrace of the ever growing police state mentality.
Gary Taubes does indeed take the other side of that animals as food debate. I went from a high fiber (& necessarily carbohydrate diet) of whole grains, fruits & vegetables, along with a few fast food meals a week, to bacon & eggs for breakfast, and poultry, other meats & fish for every meal & snack. < 20 grams of carbs / day. Green leafy vegetables like lettuce, kale, asparagus & even tomatoes etc. are OK. NO potatoes or rice, even whole grain rice, wheat or oats.
He makes the case that hunter gatherers have been studied and of those that survived until recently 20% ate NO fruits, grains or vegetables, only fish, fowl & other animals they could eat, with a marked preference for the fattest ones they could kill. They had no obesity, diabetes or other similar diet related diseases, including cancers. Of course, being the cynic that I am, I have to wonder how many were eaten by lions & tigers before they were 40. ;)
NONE of them were vegetarians, and they averaged more than 50% of their food from animals.
You might give him a read, even if you disagree with him after it is all said and done. He presents quite a bit of evidence for his point of view.
If interested you can read it from screenshots here:
smaller print, 2 columns / pg: http://www.mediafire.com/?1ss5l1g74pqd236
larger print, 1 column/pg: http://www.mediafire.com/?30d46oiymczhb2o
Btw, here's his website:
http://www.garytaubes.com/
I will give it a look. Would like to find some way to justify eating rib eye for every meal, although Fuhrman draws a strong correlation between eating animal foods and cancer and other degenerative diseases. Frankly, he convinced me.
But even more important than what is in meat that might not be good for you is what is not in meat. Specifically, a bunch of vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients (and really who knows what else exactly) that are found in plant foods only. That's the reason why vitamin A supplements appear to be a bad thing.
All Fuhrman said on the subject of hunter/gatherers really was: Of course they ate meat. They ate whatever they could get their hands on, including grasshoppers and beetles, and the more calories, the better. (He left out the part about rib eye tasting good.)
Question: Which has more protein: 100 calories of brocolli or 100 calories of sirloin steak? According to Dr. Fuhrman, it's actually the brocolli. Of course, one has to eat about ten pounds of brocolli to get 100 calories; hence my observation, supra, that one better have a Vita-Mix or something similar if they seriously intend to consume a couple thousand calories a day from tomatos, collard greens, radishes, kale, spinach, and the like.
Thanks for the information.
Well said...Trying too understand...well said!
That's called the "New World Order" in them thar 'fiction' novels....
The constant pressure during my lifetime has been to transfer the rule of law away from US elected representatives to unelected 'selected' 'world' representatives, final interpretation of law to unelected judges, and taxing to 'world' taxing bodies. The last is the one they are desperate for. The main tools for accomplishing this goal of the elite has been the judicial system and international treaties.
We have one tool in our box to save our freedom - the Constitution is not a suicide pact. We 'only' need to refuse to do unconstitutional activities. Last resort is a general strike across the USA. Nobody who does not work for the government works any more. Let the tax leeches keep taking, and the tax payers stop paying. This would be a non violent way of ending the system in a matter of months.
Strictly abiding by the constitution will get you thrown in jail, of course, but it mat be worth it just to make a stand (although the media won't pay you any attention, so it's pretty much an echo-chamber).
On that note, "bump", to the story of Thomas Ball, 58, of Holden, Mass., who set himself on fire because the "system" permanently took his children away from him:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/17/986238/-Man-sets-himself-on-fir...
Link to original story here: http://www.sentinelsource.com/news/local/man-found-dead-in-fire-near-kee...
(the SentinelSource, evidently exercising its Property rights, is now charging a subscription fee -- hence the DailyKos link (blech))
Europe has a multi-party system and they are equally under the grip of the banking cartel.
Yes, there are defects with our political systems. But there is a far, far greater defect with our government and that is our financial system, which exercises undue influence. Specifically, the problem is banking.
And it always has been.
What UN agenda? There is no other UN agenda that the one brought by the US. The UN is a US tool in this US world order, to dilute US responsibility over the rest of the world.
Wars are decided by the US and condoned by the UN. The US declares its wars for personal profits and says they are backed up by the rest of the world to avoid taking responsibility for their wars.
No UN agenda.
The UN does seem to have at least one agenda, that being to give high paying jobs to the retarded or generally incompetent relatives and friends of TPTB in all countries of the world. They have all kinds of committies, delegations and groups whose business it is to do nothing, but to collect handsome wages.
I would replace US with "zionists".... western zionists would be redundant.
But is has nothing to do with diluting power, moreso consolidating under oligarch/communist rule.
Yes, that is right. As mentioned in the first post, the UN is a tool to dilute the responsiblility of the US in all the US waged wars.
Repeal the 17th amendment and return to a republic. We are a full blown democracy right now and history has proven all democracies fail.
With a comment like that... I'd keep the bag on your head...
Allowing state legislators to choose the state's senators is a far more corrupt system... Try banning all political advertising and installing Federal term limits...
Not true.
Much better to have Senators claw their way up through locally elected representatives than to sweep in and buy a seat for a multi-million dollar snow job on the sheeple.
If the state legislators appointed Senators, how likely is it that we would have gotten a Senator Obama, Clinton, Franken, Corzine, Mosley Braun and the like?
Senators prior to the 17th Amendment owed their jobs and fidelity to the states they came from, not to a variety of well moneyed national special interests and politicians.
As it stands today, the agendas of the states legislatures matter little to the future of a US Senator.
The 17th Amendment stole power that the founders intended to remain with the states and strengthened the federal government.
Hear! Hear!
Well put: the Beltway media seems to turn almost all politicians against their constituents in Flyover Country.
The elites/banksters/r-schilds control the media, banks and govt. The sheep suck up what they see on TV and TV is thes best tool ever invented for brainwashing sheep.
As far as a third party - it worked really well in England....not. Labour is hard left and pro-islamic, The Lib Dems are slightly less left and very pro-Sharia and the Tories are liberal "conservatives" who are slightly less pro-islamic. The real King of England is from a european banking family. Hhussein is one of his puppets along with mccain and old JP Morgan and the Rockefellers.
Welcom to Canada. We have 5 national parties and the conservatives have a majority obtained with only 20 or so per cent of the popular vote. So what principle runs the country?
At least our American cousins can impeach their president, first amoung equals, but we are stuck with ours.
Many of our government minitries have been captured by industry and lobbiests. Canadian Sheeple have poor television programming, mostly subsidized by the government as some form of art, so we spend most of our viewing hours watching Hollywood and CNBC with its reporting on baby killers walking free and employment is up along with the GDP.
I think all countries rise and fall. Maybe not in 500 years and not as definitive as we would like to see but it is happening. Primitive human nature will take over.
See this this this this this this this this this this and....... This!!!!!!!
Yes, and THAT!
No offense, just noticed this and this .... :)