Founding Father’s Quote Friday – April 24, 2009

George Washington, letter to James Madison, March 2, 1788“Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth.”

Our first President, George Washington, would today be called a “neo-con.”  Today’s liberal says, “Not everyone can handle freedom.”  They said it about Russians, Eastern Europeans, and now the Iraqis.  But as the Iraqis move further into freedom, each and every day, they prove the American and European liberal irrelevant.

Check out more Founding Father’s quotes at

Sound off by commenting on this post.  Comment here.


  1. Good quote, but I disagree that Geo. Washington would have been labeled a “neo-con” should the term have existed. Neo-cons are, primarily, intent on conquering other nations through means of influencing their economies (see People for the New American Century if you want a concise belief statement of the neo-con).

    Washington was a Federalist. He would be considered an “isolationist” by today’s terms, because he believed in leaving other nations alone in their economics and governmental policies, but establishing trade with them all, if willing.

    I do not believe the purpose of our presence in Iraq is to bring liberty to the Iraqi masses. It is to stamp our presence into their nation, as a foothold, to gain access to its resources.

  2. Good quote by Washington. Like Cato above, I don’t understand how people could classify Washington as a neo-con, although I have heard of several groups of people who do. Neo-cons are just big government liberals with conservative name tags.

    You quote the liberals as believing that “not everyone can handle freedom.” I don’t view this issue the same way liberals do, but the statement by itself is sadly true. Now, the liberals would say for example, that therefore, big government is the answer. I disagree.

    The statement itself though, is historically true. Even our own Founding Fathers knew this. They knew that only certain people with certain prerequisites can sustain a free form of government. You cannot give freedom to those who A) are not willing to defend it, B) do not know how to sustain it, and C) are irresponsible and immoral in their habits and actions.

    I discussed this subject on an earlier FFQF post of mine, which dealt with a very enlightening piece from John Adams. The post is here.

    As for a surge of freedom in Iraq — I guess the Iraqis are experiencing better times now, then they were under Hussein. BUT, they are a Muslim nation, and according to their new “democratic” constitution (which, btw, was popularly voted upon by the Iraqi people, and was officialized in October of 2005), ISLAM (the religion of the jihadist terrorists which our government is supposedly fighting) is the established religion.

    The outcome of our “exporting democracy project” has simply been to create a nation that has established itself as another Muslim state? How can a Christian nation be responsible for something like that? How can we send our troops to accomplish something like that??

    I’m not saying that freedom is only for Americans. But freedom cannot be sustained in certain countries that entertain such belief systems as Islam. In the same way, America is not currently able to sustain her free form of government, because the belief system lived and practiced by a majority of the citizens here is that of humanism. You can’t have liberty without virtue, and humanism is the antidote to virtue in any society. I deal with this subject in my above post. Your comments there are welcome.

    I could go on; this subject is very important, and many times there is so much truth absent in the mainstream discussion of this. But, I will spare you the chore of reading a long comment.

    Thanks for participating today! My FFQF post for today is also up. Happy FFQF!

  3. theyoungamerican

    Dear all (Cato, Hercules, and Jon Paul),
    I must apologize for three things. First, I was traveling yesterday when the posts were left so I am only now able to reply. Second, for my ill chosen word of neo-con. I am not a neo-con. In fact, I agree completely with Hercules’ appraisal that they are “just big government liberals with conservative name tags.” I would go on to say that neo-cons are one of the primary reasons for the decline of the Republican party. I chose this description (not for all of the obvious and negative reasons but) simply for the reason that the name is synonymous with the belief that liberty is contagious. That is the only neo-con view that I would claim. So please forgive my poor choice of words, I am new to blogging. Ha ha.

    Thirdly, to Hercules’ point, and a well stated point by the way, that people must be willing to fight for their freedom, live morally, ect. in order to maintain their freedom. The founders were not shy about stating that and I completely agree with that. Again, my comment was not well prefaced. I believe that all men are created equal, with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, whether or not their government allows it. But whether or not they, their world view, religion, etc. leaves room for it, they long for it in their souls. If our founding documents are true and our Creator created us with certain inalienable rights, then all humans must have this longing (which is my belief) whether or not they are able of sustaining it.

    I will work harder in the future to make my points with adequate explanations and more appropriate words. My only point of contention is on Cato’s comment that entering Iraq was to “stamp our presence into their nation, as a foothold, to gain access to its resources.” I don’t really want to debate this point, I simply don’t want to let it be thought that I believe our former administration’s agenda was anything other than what was stated at the time. Whether or not it was the right decision to go there.

    Thanks all for reading and commenting. It’s been a fun week.

  4. Hello YoungAmerican. I’m sorry it has taken me this long to get back to you. I’ve been under the weather, with a brush of a cold, so I’ve not been on the blogosphere much.

    Thanks for your response.

    As far as I understand it, the idea that liberty is contagious, may be a true one, and not one that (as you are aware, I’m sure) is not limited to neo-cons. Everybody wants to enjoy liberty. Everybody wants to be free; who in their right mind wouldn’t?

    But this is where I disagree with neo-cons, the Republican Party, and the Iraq War: just because people WANT to be free doesn’t mean they CAN be free. Don’t get me wrong; what I mean by “not all people can be free” is that not every belief that people maintain, not every religion, culture, and moral standard can sustain liberty. And yet, we think that we can march into a Muslim nation, start a war, overthrow a dictatorial regime, institute a democratic Muslim country (that sounds like an oxymoron), and hope that our troops can return home in the near future, having a mission well-accomplished. Um, that’s not gonna work.

    Furthermore, our Constitution gives no authorization whatever to the executive branch to make war with another country except in cases of self-defense. In other words, that country has to be at war with us already.

    And the President can’t declare war; only the Congress can. But Bush didn’t ask Congress for a declaration of war; he just went ahead and went to war. So, the Iraq War, the so-called War on Terror, is unconstitutional. If we were fighting terror, dangerous terrorist regimes, for the sake of ridding the world of oppression, the first place to go would have been North Korea, or Saudi Arabia. But no war with Korea (even though they are unquestionably developing nuclear weapons, and are starving their own people to death), and we are chummies with Saudi Arabia.

    I don’t think that the Iraqi people are ready to sustain freedom. What right, I ask, did America have to go into their country, against our own fundamental laws, to overthrow the government of that country, and at the expense of the lives of our troops and Iraqis alike, establish a Muslim country. If we wish to see that country established on law and order and peace, our troops will be their indefinitely, because the mission is impossible.

    But who cares about what the Constitution says anymore? Bush didn’t seem to, and yet the Republicans still stood behind him. When challenged by a reporter to demonstrate how the Patriot Acts were constitutional, Bush cursed, and angrily called the Constitution a ” — —– piece of paper.” If anything is a demonstration of the neo-con attitude, this was it.

    If you want to disagree with Cato’s comment about the administration’s real intent for the war, that is up to you. I really mean no offense at all to you, but I encourage you to investigate some of the facts about the war. I should like to believe that the Bush administration, right or wrong, acted with the noblest of intentions. But there is way to much cover-up and way to much deceit to be sure. I don’t think that Bush, especially considering the above incident, acted with complete integrity.

    We need to be careful that we draw our lines of allegiance around principles, not figures, parties, or names. Not even the name “conservative.”

    I hope this long comment wasn’t a work-load to read. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this.

    I hope to see your FFQF post today! Mine will be up soon (hopefully!).

    Best regards,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: