Would our founding fathers be electable this year?

Often, when visiting links, the first thing I check, if I can find it, is there "About Us" page. Here's a snip from theirs.

After attacking "corporate media" and "right wing" media, they then state they are doing their version of the same thing.

After reading the article, my first thought, as as it often is with any site with an "agenda" pro or con is to dig a little deeper. Just as the Bible is often quoted out of context, others are too. I'm not as versed in the beliefs of the founding fathers, as I should be. Therefore my question is does the article accurately portray their beliefs. And more importantly, how they viewed their own beliefs in relationship to the republic they were forming.

Why only these 5 and not some of the others?

Finally, in answer to the question, I too agree, probably not. Each and everyone of the founders, not just these 5, would be labeled as extremists, terrorists, racist, and probably a whole lot more. In fact, I doubt that anyone of them would seek office, after seeing what's happened to the republic they formed. If memory serves, Ben Franklin was asked what kind of government did we have. His answer: "A republic, if you can keep it."

 

Patrick Henry and John Hancock could be elected.

 

They'd probably take one look around, call up the militia, and get us back to where we started.

 

Hamilton would probably stand a good chance. He was always on the central banker's side.

 

No. The Founders were largely firmly planted in their convictions and not so poll driven.

In response to Bill, we hear about taxation without representation as being the main reason for the revolution but that is not accurate. That was one of many issues. One key issue was religious freedom. For example, King George would not let Bible be printed in English in the colonies. This can be seen by not only reading the Declaration of Independence but the writings of our Founders that explain their thinking on the issues that led to the summarized complaints against King George.



What is perhaps more telling is that today's politicians would be much less likely to be elected back then.

 

Just thought I'd mention it as the abusive inflationary pracitices of the Bank of England was a big reason our founders revolted against King George.

Morris and his fellow Nationalists wanted a king-like chief executive who would rule over a mercantilist empire, just as the king of England ruled over his mercantilist empire. They, of course, would be the ones to advise and instruct the "king" and benefit financially from such an empire. So their young protégé Hamilton commenced his seven-year crusade to overthrow the first US constitution — the Articles of Confederation — by calling for a new constitutional convention to supposedly "revise" the Articles of Confederation. At the convention, Hamilton laid out his (really Morris's) plan: a permanent president who would appoint all the governors and who would have veto power over all state legislation. Under such a plan, state sovereignty would have been destroyed, and there would have been no escape from the central government's high taxes, protectionist tariffs, heavy debt, and foreign-policy imperialism — the agenda of the Nationalists.



Hey now this is exactly what we have today!!! Except we change banker puppets out every four years or so to maintain the illusion of being a self governed independent nation.


In making his case to President Washington for the constitutionality of a central bank, which had been explicitly rejected at the constitutional convention, Hamilton invented the idea of "implied powers" of the Constitution. These were "powers" that were not expressly delegated to the federal government in the document, but could be "implied" by clever lawyers like Hamilton. This of course became a roadmap for the total destruction of constitutional limitations on the powers of the federal government.

The First Bank of the United States "promptly fulfilled its inflationary potential," Rothbard writes in his History of Money and Banking in the United States (p. 69). It issued millions of dollars in paper money and demand deposits "pyramiding on top of $2 million in specie." The Bank invested heavily in the US government, and "The result of the outpouring of credit and paper money by the new Bank of the United States was … an increase [in prices] of 72 percent" from 1791–1796.

Northern merchants provided the main political support for Hamilton's Bank, whereas southern politicians like Jefferson supplied most of the opposition to it, seeing it as nothing more than a vehicle for financing an American version of the corrupt British mercantilist system, which would be destructive of liberty and prosperity. They were right, of course, and remain right to this day.

CONTINUE . . .

CONTINUE . . .

Does that answer your questions Salty? Being elected president doesn't mean one is honorable or honest, btw if that was what you were trying to imply. It only means the banks and corporations have plastered enough propaganda in the minds of consumers (used to be called citizens) through their control of the mass dream media to seat one of their pliable vassals in office.

We haven't got the same excuse that the people that supported Hamilton. We have 200+ years of history showing us what works and what doesn't work, more so if we read what our founders have said. Hamilton's supporters were ignorant because of a lack of information, we on the other hand are ignorant because we choose to be.