Thomas Jefferson fights against Big Government

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764.

The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.

A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.

Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.

Voting Rights should be more restricted

I posted the letter below as a separate post, due to its length. In essence, John Adams explains the reasoning of the Founding Fathers in restricting the right to vote to adult male landowners.

While Kids Voting is commonplace now, it is still obvious that they do not have the knowledge and experience to make an informed decision.

It is easy to disagree with his statements regarding women, since it may be claimed that landowners can be similarly preoccupied with working to survive in the same way that women could be preoccupied with nurturing children. I don't think we should restrict the right of women to vote. But, it is interesting to note the number of women who demonstrate, or even publicly state, that they will vote however their husband or boyfriend tells them to. Obviously this does not apply to all women, and could apply to some men. It is simply more prevalent in women.

While it may not be appropriate, at this point, to remove the right to vote from all who don't own real estate, it does make sense to require that they follow an additional process to gain the right to vote. If a person cannot show enough initiative to either acquire and maintain property or follow an established procedure to gain the right to vote, they will certainly not take the initiative to become informed on the issues. The mainstream media loves the "motor voter" type bills, because they control the prime source of information for those that don't do personal research. In an America that followed the understanding of the founding fathers, there would be a test to gain the right to vote, just as there is a test to gain the right to drive.

Alexander Hamilton 1775

[The classic argument for limiting voting rights to adult males who own property: so that voters are excluded who are dependent on the wills of others for their livelihood. — TGW]

[Hamilton is quoting Blackstone’s Commentaries, bk. 1, ch. 2:]

"If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other."

-- From http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com

John Adams to James Sullivan on women, the poor, and voting rights

May 26, 1776

[Adams explains why women, children, and the poor are excluded from the vote. — TGW]

It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the consent of the people. But to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly, to every act of legislation? No, you will say. This is impossible. How then does the right arise in the majority to govern the minority, against their will? Whence arises the right of the men to govern women, without their consent? Whence the right of the old to bind the young, without theirs?

But let us first suppose, that the whole community of every age, rank, sex, and condition, has a right to vote. This community, is assembled—a motion is made and carried by a majority of one voice. The minority will not agree to this. Whence arises the right of the majority to govern, and the obligation of the minority to obey? from necessity, you will say, because there can be no other rule.

But why exclude women? You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience, in the great business of life, and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children, that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of their own. True. But will not these reasons apply to others?

Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own?

If this is a fact, if you give to every man, who has no property, a vote, will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law?Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest…

I should think that wisdom and policy would dictate in these times, to be very cautious of making alterations. Our people have never been very rigid in scrutinizing into the qualifications of voters, and I presume they will not now begin to be so. But I would not advise them to make any alteration in the laws, at present, respecting the qualifications of voters.

Your idea, that those laws, which affect the lives and personal liberty of all, or which inflict corporal punishment, affect those, who are not qualified to vote, as well as those who are, is just. But, so they do women, as well as men, children as well as adults. What reason should there be, for excluding a man of twenty years, Eleven months and twenty-seven days old, from a vote when you admit one, who is twenty one? The reason is, you must fix upon some period in life, when the understanding and will of men in general is fit to be trusted by the public. Will not the same reason justify the state in fixing upon some certain quantity of property, as a qualification.

The same reasoning, which will induce you to admit all men, who have no property, to vote, with those who have, for those laws, which affect the person will prove that you ought to admit women and children: for generally speaking, women and children, have as good judgment, and as independent minds as those men who are wholly destitute of property: these last being to all intents and purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their husbands, or children on their parents…

Society can be governed only by general rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case, as it happens, nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general, comprehensive regulations for cases and persons. The only question is, which general rule, will accommodate most cases and most persons.

Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks, to one common level.

Obama Gaffes and Flip-Flops

I decided it is time to start capturing, in one place, the elitist and offensive statements made by Barak Obama, in his run to be the President of the most powerful nation on earth. Due to his woeful inexperience, I expect this list to grow as he is forced to state a platform and stick to it.

Soundbites:
"I don't want her punished with a baby."
"typical white person"
"clinging to their guns and religion"

Flip-Flops:
Unequivocally Pull Troops from Iraq
Public Funding for political campaigns
No Washington Insiders pulling the strings