lll

Have The Founding Fathers Been Betrayed?

George Mason University economics professor Walter Williams who recently appeared on Fox media replied to a question regarding the growing power of the federal government which is resulting in the decrease of citizen freedoms.

Host Mark Levin questioned the outcome of this persisting. Williams responded saying it is a betrayal of the nation’s founding fathers.

“Well, people will say, ‘Well, what can we do?’ And I ask, ‘Are the American people, as human beings, are we any different from the Spanish, the Portuguese, the French, the British, great empires of the past who went down the tubes for doing roughly what we’re doing, bread and services?’” he responded. “And I say, ‘Well, maybe we’re not that different, and maybe we’re going to share the same future as those other great empires of the past.’ Keep in mind, we have betrayed the founding fathers of our country.”

“I mean, if you look at Federalist Paper 45, when James Madison is writing Federalist Paper 45, he was trying to convince the citizens of New York to ratify the Constitution, and they were afraid to ratify the Constitution,” Williams continued. “And he said, the powers that we delegated to the federal government are few and well-defined, and restricted mostly to external affairs. The powers left with the people in the state are indefinite and numerous. If you turn that upside down, we have what we have now: The powers of the federal government are indefinite and numerous.”


  • Phil Higdon

    He is correct. The federal government is out of control and is continuing to restrict our rights and freedoms in the effort to control virtually every aspect of our lives. Control of We the People is the ultimate goal.

  • Scotty Phillips

    Lets all just move to Mars!

    • GomeznSA

      Umm, wouldn’t that mean that the women would have to move to Venus?

      • BrokedownMarine

        Cute!

  • minorhull

    He is right! Seems to me it is time for the next revolution to take place to run the scum in DC off and start over!

  • Dodie1990

    No question. OUr President who was elected to uphold and defend the 2nd amendment is eviscerating it ending due process and arbitrarily denying all 18-21 year olds the right to purchase a firearm. They will not be able to use a firearm in the military either.

    • Jeanne Stotler

      I have raised 7 sons, and 2 grandsons and I will tell you they were NEVER responsible enogh to buy o rown a gun at 18,

      • Dodie1990

        Were they able to join the military? Vote? Get Married? Buy a house or business? You are either an adult or you aren’t If you take away their rights that is discriminatory. If they cannot own or buy a gun they cannot be in the military

        • Jeanne Stotler

          This has nothing to do with Military, buying a house, or getting married, etc. This is a question of safety for millions, Most 18-21- yr olds, could NOT get a mortgage, or open a business, and I will stand by it, they do not need guns, I do go for a exemption to hunting rifles,in areas where they can hunt. Not others.

          • Dodie1990

            Then you should take their right to vote, ban them from the military. Most 18-21 year olds are not criminals pr crazies. many are responsible citizens, working in, in the military, married some with children. To paint all as crazy/criminals is unfair to the millions of those who are good citizens and never hurt anyone. Now you want to indiscriminately take way their 2nd amendment?

          • Joseph C Moore USN Ret

            Age does not automatically confirm judgement. Most under the age of 21 are not mature in judgement (even if some are). I would prefer that young (under 21) have to show knowledge of the constitution and bill of rights, with some training and mature guidance (such as driver education is now mandated), before conferring voting rights, drinking of alcohol, purchasing a firearm (without an adult responsible for the ownership and purchase). I would also include military service. The teen brain has not fully developed for such responsibility (in most cases). Certainly many adults are also of immature judgement as they exhibit, but that would reduce many of the problems otherwise.

          • Dodie1990

            I am sure you served with many competent 18-21 year olds. You would take their right to have a rifle because of one or two criminals? That is like taking everyone’s car because of a drunk driver. Misuse of the weapon is the problem, not the weapon, or millions of legal lawful owners of all ages.

          • Joseph C Moore USN Ret

            You are leaping to an erroneous conclusion. I didn’t say that pre adults cannot be mature in judgement. I said that the cognitive behavior is still developing in most who are not fully mature. I would reserve responsibility to those who have PROVEN responsible judgement and skills, i.e. as in driving class, road training and test before licensing.

          • Juanito Ibañez

            If they are not “mature in judgement” to purchase and/or own firearms, they sure as hell aren’t “mature enough” to be voting!

          • Joseph C Moore USN Ret

            Voting for those under 21 is a relatively new feature. Our elders of yore knew better than to trust the judgement of youngsters until they had PROVEN themselves responsible. Thank you, Juanito. I surmise that you proved your responsibility at an early age.

      • Scott Figgins

        I took and passed the Hunters safety course at 8 years old .I’ve been around and owned firearms my whole life. My parents bought me my first shotgun at 8 years old. I’m almost 48 years and never once did I ever think about hurting anybody . For a lot of kids hunting is how they bond with their fathers ! This whole situation is a bad situation but let’s be rational about it.

    • E James Maggio

      BS, them not being able to purchase a firearm has nothing to do with the military. the can be 17 and still be able to use a firearm if necessary. If they are in the service that is all it takes.

      • Dodie1990

        Seems discriminatory to me.

        • Joseph C Moore USN Ret

          Discrimination is a useful word meaning to show proper judgement. It has been perverted by the leftists to mean something bad, but ignorance of our language is rife.

      • BrokedownMarine

        That is not true in it’s generalization. If you are in the military you may be called upon to use a firearm in a “lawful action”. That does not mean you are exempt from the laws of whatever state you are in at the time. You are not allowed to carry a weapon on the base you are stationed at, but you might be able to off the base, depending on the civil laws of the state. So just being in the military doesn’t mean you are automatically allowed to carry a weapon.

        • E James Maggio

          I did not say anyone had a gun on the base, we were only issued guns when it was necessary. Overseas we were issued guns and we kept them in out huts

          • BrokedownMarine

            Roger

    • NancyPlum

      There will be exceptions for those in the military.

      • Juanito Ibañez

        The ‘Lautenberg Law’ notwithstanding, there is ALWAYS “exceptions” and “exemptions” written into these gun control laws for police and military.

        It seems as though the only ones LibSoc SJW Democrat gun controllers want to have guns is their the new praetorian guard.

        • BrokedownMarine

          Who (Praetorian Guard) just may come back and bite them in the ass!

  • John Edward Blake

    The three way split of power is gone and now the most powerful is the EXECUTIVE/PRESIDENT.THE SUPREME COURT AND THEN THE LEGISLATURE.This is why voting is so important and knowing what you vote for.The pattern of the left is to confuse and stupify the young to vote for them.The day of fairness is gone to be replaced by duplicity and lies.

  • BrokedownMarine

    I am starting to feel the heat of betrayal by Mr. Trump on our gun rights. I hope the media replays over and over the promises he made to the NRA!

    • Jeanne Stotler

      I agree with the President, IF someone , like Nicolas Cruz, shows the signs he showed, GO GET HIS GUNS, BEFORE, he gets to use them. I had a friend in a domestic abuse situation, the Police served him with a Protection order, and confiscated his guns, then and Only then, with Police standing by, could she reenter house to get her belongings that she needed at that time, later she got the rest after he left house. IF ( hindsight is always 20/20) those guns were removed during the numerous calls Parkland would not have happened.

      • NancyPlum

        If they seize guns first, and then go through the “due process” the accused is entitled to, they should fast-track it (perhaps in a special court) so that innocent accused persons can get their property back. Some of those accused are going to be innocent.

        • Jeanne Stotler

          True, from what I saw with my friend, they had a court hearing within 24 hours of the emergency protection served, this could and should be brought up then, same with a mental health hearing, this is not a violation of rights for one BUT a protection of rights for many, LIFE

      • Philip fabiano

        What. What our President said is something I would have expected Obama to say. Take the guns and then have them prove they have a right to them?? What’s going on here. I understand the President really has no idea about the Constitution or fundamental rights so I will give him a pass. Can’t take it seriously just like when he said maybe the USA needs a ruler for life but this is how our guns will be taken from us. Don’t buy into it just because our President endorsed it. He just needs someone to explain it to him. The NRA set him straight at dinner. MAGA

        • Jeanne Stotler

          We have magistrates in Police dept., they issue the Order of Protection, a hearing is set for later, this could be norm, and would keep a lot of domestic from turning into MURDER, when the hearing is held a Judge can determine if guns can be returned. I’ll tell you, as a nurse working in ER at one time Domestic violence can get ugly, and sometimes Women are worse than men.

          • Philip fabiano

            Do you not believe in the Constitution? Do you believe the people of Canada, Great Britain, Germany, Japan are free? They have less gun gun violence but no freedom. Is that what you want this country to become. Mass shootings every few months and daily gun deaths are simply the price we must pay for our freedom. We must accept this carnage because we have a Second Amendment. Sure we can talk about arming teachers and mental health, etc etc but at the end the carnage will not stop. We either become Canada or be remain a free people. There cannot be any freedom without guns. MAGA.

          • Jeanne Stotler

            As a descendent of a signer, YES I believe in the Constitution, also believe in “COMMON SENSE” leaving guns in the hands of a mentally ill person is plain nuts, even if it’s a breakdown that may be cured, As for magistrates, we have had them since the Mayflower, this is legal and speeds up the progress, ARE YOU in favor of leaving guns in the hands of someone who has used violence against either mate or neighbor and .in fit of anger, could kill or main others? I’m not, they can petition the court for their return, this is what my friends husband did.

          • Philip fabiano

            What does common sense have to do with the Second Amendment. We are entitled to our guns and if innocent people die that’s just the price we must pay for our freedom. The right to a gun is the most important thing. If you want to claim a person is mental ill prove it first but even then why would you take a way a fundamental right. You are in the minority in your dangerous thinking. No change was made in gun laws when how many kids were killed? No change was made in gun laws except taking down one flag when someone killed people in a church.

  • Betty Sakai

    The best antidote for too much federal or state government is educating students. Currently, gun-control is one area exhibiting lots of ignorance by politicians and the media. Facts: Nobody wants government to take guns away, but the mentally ill need not to have weapons. This should NEVER be done legislatively. Better would be on-site armed defenders to simply eliminate the problem. This is what the media will not tell you (spread the word): Quoting from @June762 on Constitution.com 3/1/18: In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Spread the word.

    • BrokedownMarine

      I just want to commend you on a thoughtful, well researched post! We don’t, unfortunately, see much intelligent thoughtful posts on the internet anymore. It was refreshing to read yours!

      • Betty Sakai

        Thank you. Just an old teacher who loves her country. I can write so that’s what I do, hoping good people like you read the information and share it with others.

    • David F Lanphere

      Dear Betty, I wish we still had teachers as knowledgeable as you, who are willing to actually teach our children. I don’t know about every child or every teacher, and sometimes I am pleasantly surprised, but most of our children actually believe that socialism is is a better system than Real Capitalism. I say real as opposed to the “crony” capitalism that is practiced today. Whether or not you want to own a gun or want to leave it to the Police, is up to you, but once we lose that God Given Right, the rest of the Rights will fall. Progressives are anything but “progressive”. If you want to end up like Venezuela, just keep voting for the democrats, and their progressive agenda!

      • Betty Sakai

        Quoting from a booklet provided by the National Center for Constitutional Studies (208) 645-2625 entitled, “The Constitution of the United States” …[provided for] “its only keepers, the people” — George Washington, a quote from Benjamin Franklin: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” One other quote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

        • David F Lanphere

          Oh Betty, I think the Greeks call it Agape (sic?).  I have “served” my Republic since 1969, either in the Navy or working for the Navy, and I have watched my Republic slipping away, every single day.  Was it George Dewey, the progressive educator who developed the “Dewey decimal System”, that was part of the beginning of the end for the education of our youth.  Jimmy Carter started the Dept. of Education(?) while he was president.  Once the federal (progressive) government was in control of the education of our youth, it was all over.  My daughter is learning to be a “child psychologist/special needs teacher”, but she gets mail from the ACLU.  I fear for her future, and what she will be teaching her students.  She thinks that Christopher Columbus was personally responsible for the murder of the innocent Native Americans, as that is what our children have been taught!  I could go on, but I won’t, I still have work to do. V/R  David

    • Terry Butts

      “Facts: Nobody wants government to take guns away”

      You need to do better research on that one the POLITICIANS have even gone so far as to declare they want to “DRAG EVERY GUN OWNER IN AMERICA BEHIND A PICKUP” for nothing more than owning one.

      There are NUMEROUS videos of the politicians OPENLY STATING that total gun confiscation is their goal.

      https://newstarget.com/2017-11-19-liberal-media-admits-the-ultimate-goal-is-gun-confiscation-from-all-citizens-at-gunpoint.html

      https://downtrend.com/71superb/new-republic-calls-for-total-gun-ban-and-mass-confiscation/

      Straight from the white house.

      https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

      Remember that JUST HAVING this conversation makes us all a DANGER according to these politicians since we did not just blindly go along with their false claims that making the GUN FREE ZONE (place that already has a 100% ban on guns) the crime happened in nationwide would have prevented the crime. In fact numerous politicians have stated they think that SUPPORTING the constitution or Being Christian is a MENTAL disorder that makes someone DANGEROUS.

      Even if it was able to remove guns from criminals and they suddenly lost the ability to MAKE THEIR OWN from scrap-metal, STEAL THEM from authorities, etc. there is a long list of other WEAPONS that have been used in the past by criminals to MASS MURDER people the easiest of which to make are BOMBS with the ready availability of the household products that can be converted into one. In fact there are two common cleaners that when mixed become a weapon expelling LETHAL GAS that if spread through the school would have killed all the people there with no warning or chance of escape and there is no regulation on them only the hope we all have that no criminal learns what ones they are or how to use them.

      Keeping a gun away from someone like the criminal who killed those in Florida would do nothing but make him change his weapon of choice the only thing that would have stopped him was ENFORCING THE EXISTING LAWS he violated such as his MAKING THREATS, LYING on the form he filled out to buy the guns, etc. by locking him up for those violations according to the EXISTING laws.

      Remember it was not GUNS that killed thousands on 9 1 1 it was PLANES misused by hijackers toting box cutters and the government POLICY of NEGOTIATING with hijackers AFTER they land to PROTECT the passengers instead of STOPPING them on the plane that did.

      As for what the media will not tell us you are correct as that knowledge would end the career of any politician that is caught quoting from the foreign politicians who did those things. And many of those supporting the anti gun agenda have made nearly DIRECT quotes from those past foreign politicians.

      In fact I recall years ago after one FAILED school shooting before they imposed the GUN FREE ZONE declaration that DISARMED nearby law abiding civilians where the mainstream media after finding out a CIVILIAN stopped the attack not the police FOLDED up their camp and left as they were doing so a bystander asked why they were leaving before they aired the story their CHILLING response was “We do not want him to be emulated” referring to the private citizen who stopped the crime while at the same time inferring the horrific things we see them report about are things they WANT to see people emulate.

  • BobBurnitt

    After living a lifetime, I have decided ANY or ALL People will NOT do ANYTHING until it becomes a CRISIS and their “Comforts” are removed, or are no longer available. Ever heard of “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs”? They become complacent when they have plenty to eat, and are Safe and not sleeping in the rain. They are too busy STUFFING themselves with High Fructose Corn Syrup and watching football on TV or of course PORN. As long as they have THAT, they will do NOTHING. All through History though, it has been a VOCAL and sometimes VIOLENT minority that swings the pendulum. If you are expecting a CHANGE I think you are going to be DISAPPOINTED. We now have a Police State as well. So, to challenge it, people will have to face GETTING KILLED. Of course most people find this unacceptable. They will enjoy their COMFORTS rather that being Tased and shot or imprisoned or all of the aforementioned.

    BB

  • Martin

    This is why we need powerful weapons in the public hands.

  • Trythis Last

    Let’s think a bit… 98+% of all mass shootings have been in gun free zones.
    It is surely easier, quicker to place defensive resources in schools than to ferret out and adjudicate mental condition of potential killers.
    Please define “mentally ill”.

    Be VERY careful about stomping down on due process. What if your (disgusting) neighbor reports you as mentally ill?

    Don’t get me wrong. I fully support due diligence and careful scrutiny .
    The law that clears an applicant who has been questioned after Only 3 days is as guilty as the law making schools gun free zones.
    1. Put defensive resources into schools immediately
    2. Allow the FBI 10 days to check out suspect applicants. … or 14?…why’s the rush?
    3. Develop defendable protocols to challenge mental condition with degrees of mental deficiency that provide for blocking purchase to confiscation

    • BrokedownMarine

      I am writing this as a reply but it is being written four days since your post and above these comments is a news article where the State of Washington confiscated a .25 caliber handgun from a man because his neighbors reported him as “weird and he was seen “staring at people” so he must be “mentally ill”. These are the very scenarios that have been written as warnings against allowing confiscation without Due Process”, the fact that someone can make an unfounded or general statement that accuses one of being “mentally ill” and the long arm of government uses it as an excuse to initiate confiscation of weapons. This guy broke no laws, he was just targeted as “weird” and the State of Washington took his gun. Think about what happens if the IRS says you owe money and they start proceedings to take your property, even that is “due process” but how hard is it to prove you didn’t owe the money and get your property back!?!

  • Jmanjo

    Its the progressive obsessive liberals damning our laws and freedoms for their corrupt agenda. There isn’t a Democrat around that isn’t stark raving mad to change something just to attention to themselves. They lie, cheat and steal and bear false witness with no remorse!

    • Dasgeiss

      They are in fact Communists with an agenda!

  • GomeznSA

    Dr. Williams almost always has had good advice in the 15 or so years I have been following his writings.
    I would suggest that if (not sure how) we can get back to the core intentions of the Constitution and only allow the specific enumerated powers (17), we could solve a lot of what is now wrong with our Republic. One example – as per Article 1 Section 17 Paragraph 8, there are only a very few reasons that the Federal Government can own land, how much of Nevada is now ‘owned’ – and very little of it fits those reasons.

  • gideonrockwell

    The best example of the betrayal of our Founding Fathers is what has happen to the Bill of Rights. The Founders meant for the Bill of Rights to stand separate and above the rest of the Constitution as a detailed document of GOD given rights that no person shall tamper with. That means they were saying these are rights the Creator himself gave every person and no Governing Body, no Black Robed Legislator from the bench who is supposed to be a judge, no one can touch these rights or modify them in any way. People today don’t understand what these men went through. The Crown had placed a kill on sight order on every one of the Founders. Their homes had either been seized or burned to the ground. Family members had been tortured to death by British military hunting them, but they believed in the dream of freedom for all people. They placed the Bill of Rights separate and above all other elements of the Constitution because they are God given Rights, but also they want future generations to have the ability to retain this freedom they bought for us at a horrendous price. We should be like the Israeli IDF that go to Massada on graduation day and swear the Blood Oath,”Never Again”, we should swear on the souls of the Martyrs of Boston Square, Never Again or as we do in Texas at the Alamo,”Never AGAIN”. As Ben Franklin said those who sacrifice a little freedom for security deserve no freedom.

    • BrokedownMarine

      Having studied the “Founding Fathers” pretty extensively in college I do think you might have over dramatized the experiences of the “Founders” as you call them. Yes, they were harassed, sought out, had property seized, but I know of no relatives “tortured to death”. Perhaps, you are confusing the “Bill of Rights” with the Declaration of Independence which was written after the Revolution started, I believe, in 1781. The Constitution came after the war with England was over, THEN the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution as a compromise to States like New York and Virginia. It is another name for the first ten amendments which limited the power of the Federal government. Most of the “Founders” as you call them were initially the Patriot leaders during the Revolution, they evolved into the “anti Federalists” after the war and they were the ones who influenced the writing of the “Bill of Rights”.

  • Dasgeiss

    First of all I saw the broadcast with Walter Williams. I really like him and used to listen to him on the radio years ago. He has his head on straight. Would have liked to have had him as my Econ Prof. In today’s world we now blame everyone and everything but the real problem and in this case like mental health deficiencies. We (generally speaking of course) need to toughen up and set our sites on the real target. We are aiming at the innocent bystanders (the gun; the NRA; the Republicans) instead of the Perp and obviously that will never solve the problem. Take away guns and we will be having this same conversation about knives; then hammers; then what???? Of course the communists would love nothing more than to disarm us. This is who we are really fighting with gun control folks. The commies in our midst want us disarmed so the government can then easily do whatever they want with us. Anyway just my opinion and that of a few others.

    • Alan Wood

      And according to the FBI’s latest annual crime statistics, rifles
      were used in 252 homicides, while knives were used in 1,544 homicides, blunt
      objects in 437 homicides and bare hands in 624 homicides.
      I am just waiting for the liberals to try to outlaw bare hands!