2 votes

The Resident: Enough "Founding Fathers" Crap

I am want to throw my breakfast at the screen.
This pushes racism and is so incredibly historically bias.
Please go to Youtube, and sound off.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What would RT say about our

What would RT say about our founding fathers decision to wright the 2nd amendment into law? Good or bad?

Thank the Confederalists

There is a reason the Bill of Rights were written as amendments rather than directly into the articles of the Constitution. Thank the confederalists (antifederalist patriots of '76) for that. If it were up to most of the founders, there would be no second amendment.

Ya Dern Write!

I'm more curious about the benefits that might accrue from a literate population.

RT is racist and socialist

and that's why I no longer watch RT, Press News, or several others that are popular on YouTube as truth.

Hamilton did much more harm than good, however.

Pro-national bank. Had serious class issues, which made him get behind anti-Republican ideas.

Too bad Washington put so much trust in him, although it's understandable as Hamilton was a highly efficient administrator and army officer.

Not to be a dick, but honestly I'm glad Aaron Burr capped his ass back in the day. Who knows what further damage Hamilton could've wrought? I toast Aaron Burr on that score.

(Didn't watch video, btw; that woman's face scared me.)

What would the Founders do?

Nice Shot Burr!



"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."


There is no duration defined in the Oath

Here's what I hate.

It seems like now you can't admire a person without being accused of approving of all their wrong ideas.

I mean, Thomas Jefferson is one of my heroes, and I disagree strongly with him on religion and a number of other topics. John C. Calhoun was freaking awesome - but he also supported slavery, which I (obviously) condemn. Robert E. Lee... well, there's not that much to criticize him on. Great guy all around, actually. ANYWAY, my point is that just because someone held several wrong ideas, they shouldn't be condemned entirely. Most of the Founders were very, very wise people. There is absolutely nothing wrong with looking back to them for advice, provided that their faults are also considered.

Yeah, some folks will do that, but

I didn't get the impression that she was accusing you [or anyone admiring this or that founding father] of approving of Jefferson's wrong ideas. I found her message quite moderating and positive.

I come away from the video with two reminders. One, that they were a group of fallible men not unlike politicians of today. Two, that anyone is on shaky ground who speculates that they as a whole would disapprove of America today.

Similarly I come away from Nick Gillespie's videos with positive reminders of the many ways in which we are better off today than in years past.

I admire Jefferson as hero as well. There's something quite human I feel in doing so. I do this with Ron Paul. Left to my own devices though, my admiration tends toward idolatry. So when it's all said and done, I feel a great benefit from hearing the likes of Robert Higgs [another hero :D] ruthlessly remind me of how silly it might be for me to regard Jefferson* too highly.


*or Armstrong... :D

There's a lot of truth to

There's a lot of truth to what she said there and the sooner conservatives and libertarians face that fact the sooner we'll be able to connect with good hearted progressives.

When white male libertarians, such as myself, praise the founders without acknowledging their (quite considerable) faults, folks from other perspectives dismiss our ideas. This is one of the reasons why the racist charge sticks to some of us so easily.

Jefferson was one of the greatest assets to human liberty who ever lived. But he owned other humans! Madison's checks and balances government resulted in one of the most free counties in human history, but he too owned other human beings. Hamilton WAS an elitist who wanted a monarchy rather than a republic.

The founders had many flaws. We should acknowledge those flaws and support an updated and inclusive version of their vision.

Ron Paul struck a nerve with conservatives by appealing to the constitution. It's up to us to polish his message and sell it to those who see the founders first and foremost as elitist racists.

Never trouble trouble til trouble troubles you. Fortune Cookie


Hamilton Founded National Debt, he was no friend of liberty.


He was also responsible for

He was also responsible for convincing GW to allow the first central bank, over Jefferson's strong objections.

Never trouble trouble til trouble troubles you. Fortune Cookie


I was just reading up on that.


The interesting thing is the debate over whether it was Constitutional. I tend to agree Hamilton's argument seemed over reaching, especially considering the 10th Amendment. Also interesting though is the following:

That the Bank, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, would:
1. be forbidden to buy government bonds.
2. have a mandatory rotation of directors.
3. neither issue notes nor incur debts beyond its actual capitalization.

I'm most concerned with sound money and establishing such a bank wouldn't have overturned that constitutional check. Either way I think it would be good to add an amendment clarifying once and for all whether or not it's allowed.

Check it out


or here:


Are many words, here are some:

The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose.

But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. 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 pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention.

The CON CON was the CON JOB the first time. Existing before the CON CON CON JOB was a working Free Market Super Store of Government in the form of a Voluntary Association under The Articles of Confederation. It proved itself to be working to improve the quality of government and lower the cost of government, just like any other supply offered by many suppliers to meet a demand.

One of the Legal Precedents proving the fact was the example provided in Shays's Rebellion.

The other poof of the validity of a Voluntary Association was the fact that the largest criminal invading army for profit on the planet Earth was driven off by the volunteers.



Despite the home grown despots this little experiment in Free Market Government here in America worked for at least that time period between 1776 and 1788, before the Usurpers regained Monopoly Power over money and then, of course, over government.



Prior to and during the revolutionary war the individual states "territories" racked up a bunch of debt.

After the Constitution was ratified and Washington was elected Hamilton was named Sec. of Treasury.

Hamilton determined that the best way to deal with the debt was for the Federal gvt. to assume the debt of all the states to see that is was paid off and that the U.S. credit remained in good standing.

This worked great and we paid the debt off very quickly.

From which viewpoint?

Here is National Debt:


Here is how such things are maintained:

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Here is one of the first examples:


If you LOVE the something for nothing plan, because it pays well for you at the moment, then from your perspective, as Master, you can see the value in your device.

From the perspective of the slaves, not so good.

Whatever dude.


Quickly, 1835 is 43 years.

Hamilton's cronies had advanced knowledge that the debt was to be paid in full so the went around bought the bonds at 10 cents on the Dollar, a 90% profit.

Then those same people were taxed to pay Al's cronies.

The Federal Government and the States credit was protected and the people screwed.

Congress has screwed everybody since the beginning.

Free includes debt-free!

From Wikipedia:

"As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton was the primary author of the economic policies of the George Washington administration, especially the funding of the state debts by the Federal government ...

[Hamilton] became the leader of the Federalist Party, created largely in support of his views, and was opposed by the Democratic-Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison"

People disagree with each other all the time. There was a debate topic yesterday for Adam Kokesh disagreeing with Alex Jones. Does that mean those two don't share common goals? You can't just broad brush everyone and come to simplified conclusions. Things are usually more complex than that. By the way, I also think national debt is horrible.

If you will

If you won't look in a few more places, then you will not read what I have read, whereby the obvious conclusion is made obvious.



"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "[I]n countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."

That is the typical lie in the form of a campaign promise, a fraud, and the reason for the fraud is to gain the POWER to then do the opposite of what the fraud says he will do, saying whatever will get the liar elected into POWER.

The real problem with people who fail to see this is the concept of paying the wrong people, paying the criminals, and paying more, and more, to pay the wrong people, expecting the wrong people to do the right thing.

You can remain ignorant about this all you want, it is of no interest to me, I don't get banking interest, so have whatever you want done with your life, as you please.

For me, I prefer not to be so ignorant.

Source 2:


I can pull quotes out of that all day. But would you listen to the words of the people where were there at those Secret Meetings?

My guess is no, you won't.

I have often been wrong, of course.

How about George Mason fighting against the False Federalists (who were actually Monopolists or Nationalists), will you believe his words?


Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former.

The Federalists, so called, were doing what frauds, criminals, do every time they seek to accomplish the task of Usurpation.

If you don't understand how it works, as a Business Cycle, by now, if you can't see it clearly by now, then you are probably either way behind the curve, or you will never understand how it works, and that is just the way it is, unfortunately.


Don't get

me wrong. I agree with you Hamilton was on a dangerously slippery slope. I don't buy Hamilton's argument debt should ever be seen favorably.

The point?

Confusing credit with debt is good for who, at the expense of whom?


America's Founding Fathers

were humans living at a time when all sorts of things that seem obvious today were less evolved, like women's right to vote.

You can't look back and pull out one thing or another then draw a broad conclusion that they were really not for liberty and thought of nothing but themselves.

Crafting the founding documents as they did shows a desire for a truly free country. Otherwise, as noted, as smart as they were they could have easily played political games for much greater personal benefit. Were they perfect? No, but nobody else in history has left such an opportunity for posterity.

Alternative View

Women voting is probably the single most destructive event in American history. If they didn't vote, there would be no welfare state and therefore there would not have been the impetus and subsequently the infrastructure for big brother government. They are easily manipulated and frightened.

The Founders had it right in most things.

I kind of agree

Many women I know will gladly give up liberty for security, it seems hard wired in them.

I believe there is another class of citizens that needs to lose their voting capabilities immediately though: All Gov't workers and anyone that gets some sort of monetary payment from Gov't(paycheck, welfare, social security, etc). Complete conflict of interest. No one should be able to vote themselves money to be taken from others at gunpoint.


I second that.


How in the world do you purport to have evidence it was predominantly votes cast by women that shaped our fate?

Common Sense

1920 - Nineteenth Amendment
1935 - Social Security
1964 - Civil Rights Act
1965 - Medicare
2013 - Obamacare


If only men voted, none of the aforementioned mistakes would have ever had a chance in hell of passing. The elite know this which is why they created and funded feminism... To destroy us as a people.

I realize this is difficult for you to accept. I don't expect you to. Just a different perspective worth considering.


You just kicked dirt onto all the non-male Daily Paul/Ron Paul supporters. You think this site's audience is 100% male? The problem isn't gender, it's political education. Don't forget it was very male law professor Louis Michael Seidman that recently said we should give up on the Constitution.


Oh, and by the way, how many women were part of the Congress that passed the Federal Reserve Act? I doubt very many.

Also, we have never had a female president. According to you that's for the best, but Richard Nixon was the one that took us completely off the gold standard in 1971. I consider that the single biggest impetus for the mess we're in now.

Thank You

You're over reacting which is typical...

I didn't say every woman is progressive and every man is small government minded. The matter is that of voting blocks. Without the female voting block, the majority of men would never had voted for any of the above mentioned bills. That's all. No reason to get your panties in a bunch.

It's not kicking dirt in the eyes of female DP'ers if it's true.

You said

and I quote:

Women voting is probably the single most destructive event in American history.

The way that reads you're saying women shouldn't vote. Right or wrong? Whether or not that's what you meant is a different story.

Either way, I disagree. I believe cutting the dollar's ties to gold completely in 1971 caused far more damage than all of those items you list combined. Watch this chart of federal spending after 1971:


That event is the reason Dr. Paul got involved in politics.


I will once again stress that not every woman is that way. But as a voting block, they have been a tremendous disappointment. Considering the damage done, it wasn't worth passage of the 19th. That's all.

I also agree about gold; however, the actions of Nixon in 1971 was the breaking of the last vestiges of the Gold Standard. Individuals lost the right to gold redemption in the 1930's. In '71 Foreign Central Banks lost the ability to redeem gold.