Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A QUOTE YOU MAY NEVER HAVE READ, George Washington's Prescient "Eisenhower Moment"
Source: George Washington | 5/16/2014 | By Laz A. Mataz

Posted on 05/16/2014 7:35:26 AM PDT by Lazamataz

"Over-grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."
George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

You may have never seen this quote. It may never have been taught to you in school, when studying the Founding Fathers. There may be a reason this particular quote was omitted -- perhaps the powers-that-be did not want you to focus on the truth contained therein.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, on January 17, 1961, famously warned us of the 'military-industrial complex'. Yet, in that speech, he spent little time in describing the results should we not heed his warning. George Washington, on the other hand, succinct laid out the results in a single sentence.

We see that our first President is entirely correct. Our over-grown military establishment is bleeding into the civilian living space: We have 'excess' MRAP armored vehicles being delivered to local law enforcement; we have drones that were pioneered by the military being increasingly used against the American populace; we are now universally monitored and spied upon; and more and more, we see the training and doctrine of the United States Military being applied by law enforcement.

No one would argue that we, in America, are not rushing headlong into a totalitarian police state. George Washington informs us that it was inevitable, when we decided to have the most over-grown military in the world.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Conspiracy; History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 05/16/2014 7:35:26 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty; CatherineofAragon; melissa_in_ga; Slings and Arrows; Responsibility2nd; ...
This one is a quick little bit I wrote when I stumbled on this very interesting Washington quote.

The Official Lazamataz Sometimes-Funny, Sometimes-Disturbing Ping List
243 Satisfied Customers!™

2 posted on 05/16/2014 7:39:55 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Completely agree with you, Laz.


3 posted on 05/16/2014 7:42:22 AM PDT by TheConservativeParty (tagline closed due to tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

President Eisenhower’s 1961 (often taken out of context) “military industrial complex” speech contributes to an enduring negative view of the defense industry.

President Eisenhower’s speech is cited as a warning about the defense industry and its growing influence among the “councils of government.” However, in context, in the speech, President Eisenhower acknowledged the need for a robust defense industry and called on informed citizenry and politicos to “recognize the imperative need for this development.” (The “development” referred to a healthy defense industry).

Consequently, far from condemning the defense industry, he was recognizing its vital role in advancing US political, economic and military goals.*

*—Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library, January 17, 1961 “Press release containing the text of the address;” http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/farewell_address/1961_01_17_Press_Release.pdf


4 posted on 05/16/2014 7:42:42 AM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Drawdown of the military in time of peace is good and normal practice for just these reasons. Could this have as much to do with the destruction of huge amounts of military hardware after WWII as not wanting to flood the post war economy with cheap goods? My Dad flew brand new airplanes around the pattern, taxied them to a draining area and then the engines were chopped off and the fuselages were stacked up with the tails in the air to be melted and recycled.

Gutting the military as now and destroying its morale is a completely different matter though.


5 posted on 05/16/2014 7:44:52 AM PDT by Sequoyah101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

Seeing what the industry has turned into (and having made quite a bit of money working in it) the conventional interpretation of Eisenhower’s speech is correct. The “military industrial” complex is nothing but corporate welfare for people who once lived in Orange County California but now reside inside the capitol beltway in DC.

Sucking on the teet of the taxpayer to enrich themselves. It is why DC has been recession proof since 9/11


6 posted on 05/16/2014 7:45:27 AM PDT by MadIsh32 (In order to be pro-market, sometimes you must be anti-big business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Good find, Laz!


7 posted on 05/16/2014 7:46:07 AM PDT by LUV W (All my heroes wear camos! Thank you David, Michael, Chris Txradioguy, JJ, CMS, & ALL Vets, too!l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101

Big difference between gutting the military, and giving welfare to friends of Congress.

We can have the most powerful fighting force in the history of the world without spending 1 trillion dollars a year


8 posted on 05/16/2014 7:46:33 AM PDT by MadIsh32 (In order to be pro-market, sometimes you must be anti-big business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101

Your response is perfect, and I can find no fault with it.


9 posted on 05/16/2014 7:46:38 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MadIsh32

bump

sucking at the teet of future taxpayers too


10 posted on 05/16/2014 7:47:37 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LUV W
Good find, Laz!

(Curtsey)


11 posted on 05/16/2014 7:48:14 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Rather than be whipped; I am bumping this thread.


12 posted on 05/16/2014 7:49:12 AM PDT by who knows what evil? (Yehovah saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

I suspect the actual purpose of the MRAP vehicles is to give money to their manufacturers. However, they massively over-militarize civilian authorities. I’ve written about this before, but here goes again. I had two elderly tenants in a singlewide mobile home. Apparently, he was beating her as they spent 99.99% of their time drunk. She called the sheriff and three of them showed up. The deputies noticed 48 10’’ pot plants within sight of the door. The two were so drunk the cops put them to bed. That night a SWAT team with an MRAP broke MY door off the hinges and arrested the couple. There were 12 SWAT members and an MRAP. I suppose I’m lucky they didn’t ram the MRAP through my mobile home. Tell me, were not three deputies sufficient to arrest two elderly people who were so drunk they had to be put to bed? Why was it necessary to use 12 SWAT members and an MRAP? (Answer, because they get OT and hazard pay and they have the MRAP.)

The local police are over-militarized. Look at how they act in Venezuela. They use their MRAP’s as mobile pill boxes and shoot unarmed civilians from them. Is that what we want?

At the same time, the police are becoming much more violent. Before, say 1995, I never recall a cop shooting a dog. If they were attacked they had pepper spray and probably Tasers. Now, officers seem to shoot just because they can. I used to love my local cops. I worked on charity events that benefited them, bought K9’s etc. I now fear my local cops. Their very nature has changed.


13 posted on 05/16/2014 7:50:08 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIsh32

Read the entire speech, other version he wrote and his notes.

What you feel about the situation has no bearing as to what he actually said.

Have a nice day.


14 posted on 05/16/2014 7:52:03 AM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Bump mark. I have mused on this for a long time. Perhaps I can compose something of a worthwhile contribution later. It’s tricky and touchy in today’s climate.


15 posted on 05/16/2014 7:59:19 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Tank you for that...


16 posted on 05/16/2014 7:59:53 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Didn’t know you had a list!

Add me brother!


17 posted on 05/16/2014 8:02:03 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather
Why was it necessary to use 12 SWAT members and an MRAP?

To gain publicity and help just the next over the top expenditure.

Got to show the public they are putting their military gear to use. Or they won't get funding for the next stuff.

18 posted on 05/16/2014 8:02:43 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MadIsh32
The “military industrial” complex is nothing but corporate welfare

Just look at the NSA and the people who head it will stepping back and forth between public and private at will while the companies they occasionally work for earn billions in taxpayer dollars.
19 posted on 05/16/2014 8:04:35 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs
You are the 244th Satisfied Customer!
20 posted on 05/16/2014 8:06:16 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Gracias senor!


21 posted on 05/16/2014 8:07:54 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
We see that our first President is entirely correct. Our over-grown military establishment is bleeding into the civilian living space:

On the other hand, lack of a military establishment can also be troublesome. Our tendency to scrap most of our army and navy following the conclusion of a war has resulted in us being unprepared or under-prepared to fight wars or respond to crises from the Indian wars of the 1790's to the Korean War.

22 posted on 05/16/2014 8:09:42 AM PDT by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

For facebook's thumbnail

23 posted on 05/16/2014 8:09:42 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Ooh! Ooh! Make me 245, pleeeeeeeazze?

Srsly.

jagusafr


24 posted on 05/16/2014 8:12:20 AM PDT by jagusafr (the American Trinity (Liberty, In G0D We Trust, E Pluribus Unum))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
-- No one would argue that we, in America, are not rushing headlong into a totalitarian police state. --

I'll bet four-hundred ninety-nine politicians in five-hundred, and nine-hundred ninety-nine cops and judges in a thousand would argue that their system is not headed for a "police state."

25 posted on 05/16/2014 8:14:58 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr
You are the 245th Satisfied Customer!™
26 posted on 05/16/2014 8:16:05 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: thackney

“Or they won’t get funding for the next stuff. “

Actually the MRAPs are a gift from the feds. (At least ours are.)


27 posted on 05/16/2014 8:19:56 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Good catch on a great Geo Washington quote, Laz.


28 posted on 05/16/2014 8:19:57 AM PDT by Jane Long (While Marxists continue the fundamental transformation of the USA, progressive RINOs assist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; don-o; All
Citing the merits of the Constitution's own limits on power, and reinforcing its Framers' intention that any amendments or changes to that Constitution must be made in accordance with its own provision in Article V, President Washington's chief warning was for potential abuses resulting from what he called "the spirit of Party."

Perhaps now, 200+ years later, we might look at his "military" remark within that context for further clarification.

The following excerpt from that Farewell Address may be apropos:

"To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

"All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

"Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

"It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield." - Excerpt from Washington's Farewell Address


29 posted on 05/16/2014 8:20:07 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Ain’t you a cutie!


30 posted on 05/16/2014 8:22:57 AM PDT by LUV W (All my heroes wear camos! Thank you David, Michael, Chris Txradioguy, JJ, CMS, & ALL Vets, too!l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2

Oooops! Note that the links to “Constitution” within the quoted material must be accessed from the Yale site referenced at the beginning of the quotation.


31 posted on 05/16/2014 8:24:04 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

The more I learn about George Washington, the more I realize how he was God’s agent to bring America into existence.

He risked everything to found this country. He could have been hung if he was captured.

To fight for over five years against the most powerful empire in the world to that point in time, with all of the problems and disadvantages thrown his way, it was a God powered miracle that America won.

Mt. Vernon is so beautiful, it was hard to imagine a man could leave it for years and years to suffer as he did with his army for what—not land, not power, but an IDEA!

What a man!

Thanks for bringing his words some new life.


32 posted on 05/16/2014 8:25:01 AM PDT by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exit82

What you said, dittos to it all.


33 posted on 05/16/2014 8:30:50 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: exit82
You might want to also read Washington's Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, here included in a suggested project, which I tried to promote some years ago..

William Flax

34 posted on 05/16/2014 8:35:48 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
What Washington said in his address, has no bearing on the size of the United States military today.

There is a context around the quote that reveals IMO what he was talking about, and that in a nutshell would be separate armies within the country, which eventually led to the civil war as his warning was not heeded. (slavery had little to do with it, but served as a buster to the war IMO)

THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT: (the whole address must be read to get the full contextual impact)

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

35 posted on 05/16/2014 8:36:09 AM PDT by PoloSec ( Believe the Gospel: how that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec
What Washington said in his address, has no bearing on the size of the United States military today.

Untrue. It has absolute bearing on what is happening today. The military, overgrown as it is, is turning the guns inward (offset by one level of indirection, in the form of Agencies and Police).

There is a context around the quote that reveals IMO what he was talking about, and that in a nutshell would be separate armies within the country, which eventually led to the civil war as his warning was not heeded. (slavery had little to do with it, but served as a buster to the war IMO)

Fine, I agree. However, his words are utterly pertinent and applicable to today, albeit in a different way.

36 posted on 05/16/2014 8:43:28 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
No one would argue that we, in America, are not rushing headlong into a totalitarian police state.

Agreed. It brings to mind shades of how the Germans gave in to the Nazi Party and Hitler. It is interesting to watch Americans arming themselves at the same time. Almost like they know what is coming. Hopefully it will be enough to deter any would be American dictators.

37 posted on 05/16/2014 9:10:55 AM PDT by TheDon (Californians are losing their right to keep and bear firearms one firearm at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hulka
"Eisenhower acknowledged the need for a robust defense industry and called on informed citizenry and politicos to “recognize the imperative need for this development.” (The “development” referred to a healthy defense industry)."

Then, we're toast...DRT. "Who's on Dancing With the Stars tonight?"..."I'm votin' for da' black guy!"..."Global warming! In the next 100 years, LAX will be completely under water!" "If you like your doctor..."
38 posted on 05/16/2014 9:20:07 AM PDT by PowderMonkey (WILL WORK FOR AMMO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MadIsh32
We can have the most powerful fighting force in the history of the world without spending 1 trillion dollars a year

We spend about 1/2 of the budget on paying the troops. The other half includes such things as fuel and ammunition.

Our potential adversaries spend much less per troop. They can put bigger armies into the field. They also use what would be called deceptive accounting practices anywhere in the West, so the reported amounts they spend on their military are massively understated.

Welfare recipients don't provide any goods or services for the money they get.

Could it be more efficient? Yes, but most of the inefficiency is driven by Congress and the military bureaucracy. Funding, and thus execution, of R&D is very unstable.

As the number of weapons systems developed and procured continues to shrink, so does the number of companies involved and there have been many consolidations, especially under Clinton, but under Obama as well. The companies, being bigger, develop more layers of management, and more internal bureaucracy, which also contributes to the general froth and stop/replan/start nature of the industry.

I was supporting 3 different projects when I worked at Ft. Hood. One was the existing system, one a near term future development, and one a longer term dual purpose system.

All three suffered from the start/stop issue, and eventually all three were canceled, and the mission had to continue without any of them. My job was canceled along with the systems.

The next project I worked on, a joint development of US, Italy and Germany, suffered from the same start/replan/start issue, mainly due to two factors. Obama, in one of his early acts in '09, declared the US would not procure the system, but would live up to it's development agreement with the other nations. Congress said, if we're not going to buy it, why should we pay for (part of) the development? only because of the "continuing resolution" nature of the funding, did the project continue, but at lower levels than originally planned. The last couple of years there actually was a defense budget, but it went down to the wire every year, and funding was always in question.

When flight test finally came, after I'd been cashiered again, the missiles shot down both targets as promised. 3rd missile was wasted as the 2nd hit the more difficult target, which had two missiles assigned to it, per doctrine. So, we delivered for our Welfare checks.

Providing for the Common Defense, is the main function of the federal government. Diplomatic and trade interactions with other nations follows that. But those are not what the federal government spends the bulk of the money on. Look to those other areas, not provided for in the Constitution, which have grown exponentially in the last 1/2 century, for the solution to the spending/borrowing problem.

39 posted on 05/16/2014 9:21:06 AM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Thanks for the ping, Lazamataz! The more I learn of the thoughts and statements of our Founders, especially Washington, the more in awe I am at What God Hath Wrought through them.


40 posted on 05/16/2014 9:30:44 AM PDT by TEXOKIE (We must surrender only to our Holy God and never to the evil that has befallen us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PowderMonkey

Yes. . .sadly, you are correct.


41 posted on 05/16/2014 9:42:14 AM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

I suspect they need additional funding for related maintenance, upkeep and training...


42 posted on 05/16/2014 9:45:57 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Look up the overhead, G&A and fee rates you guys charged for 3 missles.

As long as the spigot keeps running, I’ll keep making money, as will the rest of the DC area. CSC and Northrup Grumman being spitting headquarterd spitting distance from my house boosts my home value significantly. I won’t complain too loudly


43 posted on 05/16/2014 9:50:06 AM PDT by MadIsh32 (In order to be pro-market, sometimes you must be anti-big business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec
If you compare the number of troops we now have, to the population we now have. I think you'll see that our military is hardly "overgrown" in the way Washington was referring to. In 2013 we had about 0.5% of the population in the military, compared to around 1.5% during the 50s and 60s. And further cuts are planned.

We now spend a much lessor proportion of the gross domestic product, about 3.5% in FY13, on the military than we did in the '50s and and early '60s, when defense outlays were about 8-9% of GDP but a larger fraction on the federal government as a whole.

For example in FY62, defense was 9.3% of GDP and federal spending as a whole was 18.8% of GDP, the deficient was 1% of GDP, entitlements were 6.1% In FY12, defense was 4.3%, total federal outlays were 22.8%, the deficit was 7.4% and entitlements were 22.8% You could have eliminated the defense budget entirely and there would sill have been a 3.1% of GDP deficit, assuming one didn't increase entitlements, which with all the people that would have thrown on extended unemployment, food stamps etc, the deficit probably would have been higher than that, not allowing for the decrease in GDP, which would make the deficit a larger percentage yet.

44 posted on 05/16/2014 10:05:18 AM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MadIsh32
Look up the overhead, G&A and fee rates you guys charged for 3 missles.

They were "hand made" developmental birds, for both our system and Patriot, and thus quite expensive.

But you go look up profit margins for say Lockheed Martin, verses something like General Mills, or Conagra.

45 posted on 05/16/2014 10:14:57 AM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
The fact is that the military and the MiC are shrinking, more than is safe in today's world.
46 posted on 05/16/2014 10:16:41 AM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

I didn’t realize General Mills and Conangra got 90% + of their revenue from the tax payer


47 posted on 05/16/2014 11:16:54 AM PDT by MadIsh32 (In order to be pro-market, sometimes you must be anti-big business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Hulka
So why do they always leave out Congress in the quote?
48 posted on 05/16/2014 11:37:52 AM PDT by Domangart (LBGT = NAMBLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

I thinks is particularly appropriate in light of our increasingly militarizes police forces and government agencies.


49 posted on 05/16/2014 1:09:13 PM PDT by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

Excellent—thank you.


50 posted on 05/16/2014 1:12:37 PM PDT by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson