Posted on 01/19/2008 5:58:50 PM PST by ImpBill
HOW LONG DOES THE USA HAVE?
This is the most interesting thing I've read in a long time. The sad thing about it, you can see it coming. I have always heard about this democracy countdown. It is interesting and concerning to see it in print. God help us, not that we deserve it.
How Long Do We Have?
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'
'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'
'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'
'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage'
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by:
Gore: 19
Bush: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Gore: 580,000
Bush: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Gore: 127 million
Bush: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore: 13.2
Bush: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country.
Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...' Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
We are in a political season. Please remember and respond, if you so desire, keeping in mind that FreeRepublic.com is a Conservative Forum and not a political party Forum.
Perhaps you might have some thoughts and know of others who might as well.
Congressman Billybob
“About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier”
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp
Urban myth.
As are the stats.
Interesting thoughts (which I agree with) but it’s a total hoax. There is no such person as “Alexander Tyler.”
Ping
ping
Thank God for the Second Amendment, and our wise Founding Fathers who intended the right to keep and bear arms as a means of giving the people a way to fight a tyrannical government.
then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
%^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is why we have the Second Amendment.
The Athenian ‘Republic’?
How long?
Given our current rate of sending huge wealth to countries that want to kill us...given our unwillingness to defend our own borders....given that our economy is about to suffer (again) due primarily to greed...give the rate of jobs being sent overseas....and given that the US may very well elect a Liberal (either an R or a D)....my answer is:
not long.
It’s pretty much over now. When the Senate failed to remove a perjurer from the White House it became clear that our political system is not much more than a sham.
I will do some research, as I, once again "believe", Benjamin Franklin said words to the same effect at the signing of either the Declaration of Independence or Constitution.
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
John Adams
You will note that the source was an email.
Regardless of the Tyler source quoted, do you have any thoughts on the comments contained in the received email, regardless of source facts?
I agree ...
I despair for my country. We are doomed because we have become lazy, soft and fat and most of us are only interested in the candidate who will open the tap the widest so we can get the most from the public till. It's hard to look at the crowds of slack-jawed shoppers and see a revolutionary people capable of founding a republic.
Sermon over
If Fred doesn’t win in the end....we have a lot less time than we would otherwise.
Glad to see some posting about the content of the narrative, regardless of the factuality of the sources. Thank You.
The only thing I regret is that I didn't recognize it sooner.
I feel sorry for my kids and grandkids.
I trained and am training both in the exercise of freedom and liberty, they simply have no place to practice it.
Ok, urban myth accepted. Any thoughts about the context of the message?
There is a simple political answer to this.
If we elect a dem or a pro-amnesty RINO, we will see many 10's of millions of new dem voters over a short period of time. So many, that the time to the end will be greatly reduced.
Who Voted in Early America?
Voting Before the Revolution
For the most part, American colonists adopted the voter qualifications that they had known in England. Typically, a voter had to be a free, adult, male resident of his county, a member of the predominant religious group, and a “freeholder.” A freeholder owned land worth a certain amount of money. Colonists believed only freeholders should vote because only they had a permanent stake in the stability of society. Freeholders also paid the bulk of the taxes. Other persons, as the famous English lawyer William Blackstone put it, “are in so mean a situation as to be esteemed to have no will of their own.”
Becoming a freeholder was not difficult for a man in colonial America since land was plentiful and cheap. Thus up to 75 percent of the adult males in most colonies qualified as voters. But this voting group fell far short of a majority of the people then living in the English colonies. After eliminating everyone under the age of 21, all slaves and women, most Jews and Catholics, plus those men too poor to be freeholders, the colonial electorate consisted of perhaps only 10 percent to 20 percent of the total population.
The act of voting in colonial times was quite different from today. In many places, election days were social occasions accompanied by much eating and drinking. When it came time to vote, those qualified would simply gather together and signify their choices by voice or by standing up. As time went on, this form of public voting was gradually abandoned in favor of secret paper ballots. For a while, however, some colonies required published lists showing how each voter cast his ballot.
Voting fraud and abuses were common in the colonies. Sometimes large landowners would grant temporary freeholds to landless men who then handed the deeds back after voting. Individuals were paid to vote a certain way or paid not to vote at all. Corrupt voting officials would allow unqualified persons to vote while denying legitimate voters the right to cast their ballots. Intimidation and threats, even violence, were used to persuade people how to vote. Ballots were faked, purposely miscounted, “lost,” and destroyed.
After declaring independence on July 4, 1776, each former English colony wrote a state constitution. About half the states attempted to reform their voting procedures. The trend in these states was to do away with the freehold requirement in favor of granting all taxpaying, free, adult males the right to vote. Since few men escaped paying taxes of some sort, suffrage (the right to vote) expanded in these states. Vermont’s constitution went even further in 1777 when it became the first state to grant universal manhood suffrage (i.e., all adult males could vote). Some states also abolished religious tests for voting. It was in New Jersey that an apparently accidental phrase in the new state constitution permitted women to vote in substantial numbers for the first time in American history.
“Of Government in Petticoats!!!”
The provision on suffrage in the New Jersey state constitution of 1776 granted the right to vote to “all inhabitants” who were of legal age (21), owned property worth 50 English pounds (not necessarily a freehold), and resided in a county for at least one year. No one is sure what was meant by “all inhabitants” since the New Jersey constitutional convention was held in secret. But it appears that no agitation for woman suffrage occurred at the convention.
After the state constitution was ratified by the voters (presumably only men voted), little comment on the possibility of women voting took place in the state for 20 years. Even so, one state election law passed in 1790 included the words “he or she.” It is unclear how many, or if any, women actually voted during this time.
In 1797, a bitter contest for a seat in the New Jersey state legislature erupted between John Condict, a Jeffersonian Republican from Newark, and William Crane, a Federalist from Elizabeth. Condict won the election, but only by a narrow margin after Federalists from Elizabeth turned out a large number of women to vote for Crane. This was probably the first election in U.S. history in which a substantial group of women went to the polls.
Newspaper coverage of women voting was widespread in the state and included the publication of a new song titled, “The Freedom of Election.” The sarcastic last verse illustrates pretty much what the attitude of most New Jersey men must have been:
Then freedom hail! thy powers prevail
o’er prejudice and error;
No longer shall man tyrannize,
and rule the world in terror:
Now one and all, proclaim the fall
of Tyrants! - Open wide your throats,
And welcome in the peaceful scene,
of government in petticoats!!!
New Jersey newspapers debated whether the state constitution really intended for women to vote. Some argued that the words “all inhabitants” surely did not include children, slaves, and foreigners. If this were the case, they continued, women should not be allowed to vote either because they never had before. Others maintained that perhaps widows and single women who owned property worth 50 pounds should be able to vote. Married women were automatically excluded from voting since at this time all property in a marriage legally belonged to the husband.
One New Jersey opponent of woman suffrage wrote in 1799, “It is evident, that women, generally, are neither, by nature, nor habit, nor education, nor by their necessary condition in society, fitted to perform this duty [of voting] with credit to themselves, or advantage to the public.”
In 1806, Newark and Elizabeth again faced off at the polls, this time over the site of a new county courthouse. During three days of voting, partisans from both towns used every legal and illegal device to gather the most votes. Men and boys, white and black, citizens and aliens, residents and non-residents, voted (often many times). Women and girls, married and single, with and without property, joined the election frenzy. Finally, males dressed up as females and voted one more time.
Newark, with 1,600 qualified voters, counted over 5,000 votes; Elizabeth, with 1,000 legal voters, counted more than 2,200 votes. Although Newark claimed victory, the voting was so blatantly fraudulent that the state legislature canceled the election.
The following year, the state legislature passed a new election law to clear up the confusion over who was qualified to vote in New Jersey. The law declared that since it was “highly necessary to the safety, quiet, good order, and dignity of the state,” no persons were to be allowed to vote except free white men who either owned property worth 50 pounds or were taxpayers. Such voters would also have to be citizens and residents of the county where they voted. The campaign for this new election law was led by John Condict, the legislator who was nearly defeated in 1797 when many women voted for his opponent. Thus, in 1807, with little debate in the all-male state legislature, and no public protest from the state’s female population, the experiment with woman suffrage in New Jersey came to an end.
Expanding the Right to Vote
Although for a time some states like New Jersey wanted to limit suffrage, the trend throughout U.S. history has been to expand the right to vote. At first, the main debate was over property tests. But by the Civil War, most states had replaced the freehold and other property requirements with universal white manhood suffrage or something close to it.
With the end of slavery, reformers turned to securing the right to vote for black freedmen. While this was accomplished constitutionally with the ratification of the 15th Amendment in 1870, another century passed before discrimination against black voters was finally suppressed. Women did not win the right to vote until the adoption of the 19th Amendment in 1920, over 100 years after women lost the vote in New Jersey.
In 1964, the 24th Amendment prohibited denying anyone the right to vote in federal elections for failing to pay a voting or any other tax. Finally, in 1971, the 26th Amendment reduced the legal voting age to 18 in all elections.
I appreciate your additional input. So far many responses have been to debunk the sources, and then not comment on the context of the narrative.
Wish I could disagree, but I have had these thoughts for quite some long time now.
When the imbeciles are in the majority (they gave algore the popular vote in 2000, and he is a nutjob), we will fall.
Agreed. I have long felt that, unfortunately, America reached her apex a number of decades ago now. And it appears our decline may be gaining momentum rapidly.
As are the stats.
Should be true, even if it isn't. I say run it on the nightly news.
As soon as the corrupt politicians get their way, we will become CANAMEX, and 'it's over!'
Re: Your tagline: *ouch*
I have seen a great many of these illegals and there are many entrepreneurs among them. I think many of them have come here for opportunity not handouts. I see many older illegals out on the street selling fruit or flowers. Many street corners has an illegal and an American, the illegal is selling fruit and the American is asking for a handout.
If anything our government is corrupting the illegals into the welfare system.
Faith demands adherence to truth - not circumstance. This election is a litmus test. We stand, or fall, by the answer we render.
Thank you so much for adding to the discussion of the context of the thread! A very interesting read of history.
you are familiar with Madison’s exposition in Federalist Paper # 10, right?
Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...' Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.
Er, this ignores the contribution of the big corporate headquarters and universities in the cities. These are the wealthy, liberal powerbrokers...
Fraud or not, there is a lot of truth to what was originally posted. We are somewhere between 6 and 7 on that list. The culture is crumbling around us. It is just a matter of time before we get a couple more liberal activist judges on the SCOTUS that will wipe out what is left of the U.S. Constition and Bill of Rights. The mob will applaud as it happens. I am actually an optimistic person by nature, but I am also very concerned about the direction we are heading.
Ah yes, very, very recent history. All adding up to the same conclusion as written in the now Snopes.com debunked facts concerning the authors mentioned in the email.
I agree completely.
February 12, 1999 was the day I lost my country.
If Hillary is elected in November, that will be the day that will see either a revolution, a military coup, or a second civil war within the time of her term or terms as President.
Although the post quoted an article that is not genuine, it is clear, that we are at a crossroads in American history. Anyone who can see clearly knows this, even instinctively.
The curse of the Clintons has one more chance to be defeated.
They were not in 1992 or 1996. In 2000 and 2004 Hillary was elected a Senator. Now in 2008, she stands an excellent chance of becoming President of the United States.
If she is not defeated, we are looking at the end of constitutional America. And a dark time in our future.
It will cost little to defeat her before she assumes the mantle of power. After she does, the cost will be more than we can imagine.
Of course, the year was 1860, and the candidate was Abraham Lincoln. But it's still a good point.
And Lincoln opposed a war that had been quite properly declared by Congress.
That’s the plan.
I have now done the research, that I obviously should have done before posting this. The facts are indeed riddled with inaccuracies and therefore fraudulent.
That being said, I agree with the context of the writing.
Hopefully the moderators will either pull the thread or it will die a quick death.
They said that rock and roll would never die. Well, maybe it hasn’t. But it sure doesn’t sound anything like it did in the beginning.
It’s pretty much over now. When the Senate failed to remove a perjurer from the White House it became clear that our political system is not much more than a sham.
And thus:
Geeks out there may slash away but I don’t believe I'm far off:
A current state of the art microprocessor can execute about thirty billion instructions per second, (not million but billion - also related to flops but to keep it simple use ips).
Using one’s social security number, xxx-xx-xxxx, and taking one’s position on the planet, to an accuracy of a fifty foot square, (e.g.xxxdeg xx.xx’ - xxxdegxx.xx’) one’s “person-location” can be given in about 72 bits, let’s say 75.
Given three hundred million numbered individuals in the US, and dividing thirty billion by three hundred million means that the one processor (computer) can dedicate 100 instructions per second to each person; or conversely every 0.75 seconds (75bits /100 ips) a "person-location" can be moved to a memory register. That is, this one computer can roam over every individual, e.g. you, in the United States and return in three quarters of a second (given adequate input/output channels).
This means that if one wants to stay ahead of the computer one must move faster than fifty feet per three-quarters second, or about 40 mph; and that’s constant motion because the computer, as long as it is fed electrical current, doesn’t quit; if one stops it catches up. It also means there is an uncertainty index (now 40 mph), the Suntrade Uncertainty Index (SUI) similar to Heisenberg’s Principle, which defines the tracking precision, or “person-location,” as a function of the current processor state of the art, resolution of location on the planet, and the total number of people tracked. This is the power, a government, an agency, a corporate stalker, or a Hillary Clinton, can exercise over every numbered citizen in the United States, kind of like the Borg, right now! And it’s increasing (mph) all the time.
What does this mean to you and I? It means that the government you elect better be Moral. It better be Honest. It better be Humble, and Mature enough to face its own faults and limitations. It better admit that freedom, responsibility, and dignity, of the individual is the primary reason for government in the first place. Because if it does not, but rather thrives on power over others, there will be power over others. The others is YOU.
Presented to you by the Suntrade Institute, not the Brookings Institution or the CFR.
And I am not holding my breath for a positive outcome.
Now that opinion is fact in my book! LOL
Illegals? While I think that is an area for concern, what happens when the government comes up with a healthcare plan to cover every citizen?
The end.
And we have some on our side who think this can’t happen soon enough.
Yep, and they fear what Hillary will do to this nation.
Who cares if we do the same thing and push it over the edge. At least the ‘dems’ didn’t do it.
I have seen this type of things going back decades. I don’t think it makes political converts, presented with the tone it uses.
For instance, claiming 40 percent are on the dole, lumps together widely different types of situations.
And when your objective is to make persuasive arguments, you shouldn’t leave gaping holes in your argument. The ones on the dole, include seniors who have paid into FICA for decades—yet this writer would lump them together with crack whores collecting welfare.
And then don’t miss on the benefits to corporations, through such goodies as farm subsidies, depletion allowances, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.