So, I was talking to a friend last night about the next superpower being China and the repercussions it would have.  Whenever I talk about these things rather than just think about them I usually do some pretty good problem solving and some ideas came to mind. 

First, no country has ever been structured around the global economy.  What I mean by that is when the US economy was shaping up, the world trade was existent, sure, but not to the extent it is today where distance is nothing and cost is the only obstacle.  The entire western world was formed before this time and we are now wilting.  China could be the only country that might make the claim, but it too will fall victim to the effects of it when they become the superpower.  If they truly rise to power, they will undergo the same problems we are today with workers making more money and cost efficiency pushing businesses to outsource.  India will then rotate to the main supplier of jobs as they are beginning to now and the cycle starts over with them. 

What happens however after that?  Shaping economies to gear towards a global economy will be a very tough thing indeed.  In my opinion, true capitalism will be the only way for a country to rise to a superpower and keep the title. 

China will rise up above us for now, after we collapse by our own stupidity.  However, once they begin their rise, their people will not sit back and stay in the poverty they are in.  Soon they will want higher wages, more freedoms, etc etc.  What can China do to combat this?  As a communist country, the cost efficiency is not enough for an open market to thrive and if they allow trade to continue as it does now, they will fall victim to the global market as I stated above.  The other route is for all imports to be stopped, or at least virtually stopped by tariffs.  This will increase tariffs on their exports as well, causing them to go into virtual isolation, much like they did a while back.  They do have 1 billion people as consumers and could make it work for awhile, but it will inevitably prove to cause their downfall as a superpower.  No matter how it is sliced, as a communist country, China would not be able to compete worldwide while increasing their standards of living.  Therefore, they cannot sustain the title of a superpower for much longer than it takes for another country to come claim the title. 

India I am less sure about as I am less knowledgeable about their government structure, so I will not comment. 

A true capitalist country will keep all costs, not pertaining to the development of any item, so low that they should be able to compete while having a higher standard of living than other developed countries.  Innovation is higher in such economies as America has proven over the past 200+ years, which also adds another facet to the private sector that a centralized economy would not have.

That is only my hypothesis because truly I do not know how this will pan out.  History has yet to show us what will happen as the global economy has never been so integrated.  With the entire western world in chaos economically, it will be interesting to see what type of economies thrive and how living standards will compete around the globe. 

What say you?

Sorry I have been gone for so long.  School was hectic and I have recently been accepted into the Air Force as a Navigator, so I have been working through some of that.  For anyone that cares, it will be many months before I leave for training. 

Anyways, I have started keeping a notepad with me at all times because I have little flashes of political ideas (among other things) and I can never remember exactly what I was thinking.  Without further ado...

Newt better not run for President.  I have heard nothing of him making an effort, but I refuse to vote for him if he does.  His personal beliefs are as solid as any, however in the NY-23 election he put party over principle.  In my opinion the time of political parties needs to come to an end.  No matter which party takes hold, even if it is a tea party, they will inevitably become corrupt.  When a party holds a majority, they believe they can pass things that would otherwise never pass the common sense test.  A party can use its leaders to put forth a bill that gives the parties more power instead of stabilizing the country.  Imagine a Tea Party banning schools from refusing to teach Christianity principles.  Would that benefit our country?  No.  Freedom is what made this country great and any ruling party will always remove freedoms in favor of party.  Humans are built that way and as such, there must never be a group with enough power to do such things. 

My idea would be for campaign finance laws be changed so that all funding cannot cross state lines.  With that national parties would dissolve as they would be of no benefit.  State parties would stay in tact, but that is no guarantee that each state will have the same parties.  One state may even still have the Whigs with this law.  I am sure that there would be loopholes that would be exploited, but how much could they actually get done by meandering through legalities?  If that idea is not sufficient, then maybe a change in the primary system.  First, all party affiliation would be removed on the ballot and second the primaries would be run together rather than apart.  A sort of pool would be set up.  Anyone can be in the first vote off and the top 4 survive for a second vote off and the final 2 run for the office.  Removes all parties from putting up candidates they choose.  The people have much more choice.  Anyways, those are some ideas off the top of my head.

Continuing my rant against parties...Republicans were rejected in 2006 for not remaining conservative.  Democrats are being rejected now and 2010 will show that, especially if they try to move forward with healthcare.  Why do people still vote for parties?  I will be sadly disappointed if Republicans sweep back into power without changing their ways.  I am all for tea party candidates coming forward as independents and winning some seats.  It will finally get this country back on the right track.

Brit Hume was on O'Reilly a while back talking about why Obama is having terrorists tried in civilian courts.  I felt his analysis needed to be repeated.  If these terrorists are put on civilian trial, Obama can put them in our prisons.  He is alleviated from making a decision on where they should be placed.  Guantanamo is proving more difficult to close than he first thought and for that reason he doesn't want to make any decisions regarding where to put new terrorists that have been captured.  I did not think of this until Hume made the comment and it makes perfect sense.  Obama doesn't feel that conservatives will hang him for it and he satisfies his progressive friends by continuing his rhetoric about closing Guantanamo while not adding to the prisoner count.

Airline security needs to take a proactive approach and start profiling.  How many 60 year old grandmas from Minnesota have been involved in terrorist activities.  It is obvious that some people are more of a danger than others.  I do not think we should detain anyone at all and it could be done very easily.  Passports keep a tab on where a person has been, so start scanning in passports as we pass through security and a history can be attained without trouble.  All those that are chosen for their baggage to be checked more thoroughly will have been out of the country for an extended period at some point in the past.  It streamlines our security while keeping us more safe by checking a higher percentage of high risk passengers. 

It has been said in the news that there is a "disruptive scheme" taking place with China and Russia.  They made it sound like they were going to refuse to buy our debt for the sole reason of hurting our economy.  Can anyone not think of another reason they might start refusing to buy our debt?  Like say a 12.3 trillion dollar debt?  With no end in sight to the deficits, I might add.  Our economy is sitting on the point of a blade and any waver will send it crashing.  I believe our crash will be exactly timed for when foreign governments decide the risk is too high and will stop buying our debt.  At that time the feds will only have two outs.  One is printing more money to stay ahead of inflation, so they can pay off the deficit.  Hyperinflation then sets in...or....they could not spend and deflation will occur and we still hit a depression.  Either way its bad, but at least if we stop spending and contract the government, we can recover afterwords.

Beck did a special on 20th century dictators a week ago and it was spectacular.  Here is what progressives do not understand about government control and something that conservatives should focus on.  I personally believe that a tyrannical government can be the most efficient and prosperous government possible, if conditions are met.  The person leading must be extremely well educated in everything, and I mean everything...or they must be humble enough to listen to others for expertise.  They must not allow the power to rule them, but instead remain steadfast to their personal beliefs.  As I have already named the impossible I will review.  The most improbable is a person not letting the power go to their head.  At that point they start making decisions that benefit them and their friends, rather than the country as a whole.  Their beliefs begin to warp as the fate of the few around them starts to outweigh the fate of many.  Every whim of a thought may be put into action simply for any small reason.  For example Stalin starving Ukrainians.  If by some miracle that is achieved, they must be educated enough to make the correct decisions.  It is impossible for a person to know enough to run everything, so they must rely on experts, who now have lots of power in their hands and the cycle repeats.  Therefore I argue it is impossible for a Tyranny to meet my standards. 

To break on that to the point at hand, why are conservatives against more government power?  What the government can give, it can take away.  Simple as that.  Sure, even IF the current leaders are all looking out for our best interests, will it always be that way?  What if the next generation becomes even more corrupt than the current and in an attempt to balance the budget decide that all those with +14% body fat are no longer able to have health insurance?  What can the people do now that private insurance is gone?  Nothing...pure and simple.  It is not the actual people in power that are the problem, but government as a whole.  It is not Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol pot, etc, but rather the government that enabled them to use their ambitions to kill millions.  If Hitler was elected president here, he would have no chance of murdering millions of Americans, because of how our constitution is written, he wouldn't have the power.  However as we give away our freedoms, that changes and any person coming to power with evil ambitions would be able to enact their will on the people.  It is the system, not the people.

So, I was thinking the other day about the Declaration of Independence and how it says we can abolish the government if it becomes destructive.  How would that possibly happen without destroying the government?  It would take a revolution and that cannot be good for the country.  So I came up with a civil, democratic idea that would completely change our government within 6 years.  There are some details I haven't worked out, but here is the basics.

An amendment would need to be passed, in which it would detail the following:

First, a petition would need to be permanently set up at a government website.  Every month, it would keep count of how many people sign the petition.  It would reset to 0 every month, so the running tally can start back at zero.  I figure people voting with their SS#'s would be safe on a government website because they already have our information anyways so it just goes into a database that already contains the information in another form.  This also denies illegals the ability to vote for the petition.  The petition would outline triggering a vote for a complete change of power in the government.  A guesstimate that might work would be a count of 10-15 million people would be needed to trigger the vote for the next election.  A % of possible voters would probably be the best since our population is ever changing and it should increase/decrease with it.

Second, the actual vote.  The next election cycle(or maybe sooner, this is a detail that could be worked out as well) the people would vote on a resolution that would decide whether 100% of all elected officials in the government should be replaced.  In other words, incumbents would not be allowed to run for re-election.  For senators, if they are up in 4 years, when they are up for re-election, they cannot run.  It would take a 70% majority by the people for this to occur and not voting would count as a no vote, among those who did cast a vote in the election process.

As you can see, some of the details are worth debating but basically, 70% of the people want them out as a whole, and by law it happens.  It allows for a civil exchange in hands, even if the same party retains power. 

On top of what was above, I was thinking about how a person who was doing the will of the people could stay in power.  What about them winning with 70%?  Or something of that nature.  If they can get the support needed, they can retain their position and run for re-election.  Again, another detail to be discussed.

What do you think about this possibility, or any changes that would be needed?  Of course I am aware that none of those in power would vote for this, but what of the idea itself?

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

Ok, so if anyone has been watching Glenn Beck, you will see that the gloves are off!  I am excited!  I believe we are rising to a climax here and as soon as the economy hits the next drop (which I believe will be soon) things will start to move. 

Right now we have a White House employee leading a boycott against a private citizen.  Van Jones is leading a boycotting of the advertisers for Glenn Beck.  Beck was forced to take a week vacation by Fox, so things would cool down.  Beck came back swinging and things are starting to heat up.  Just imagine if anyone under Bush had done this against CNN or the likes.  My gosh the outcry.

Holder is investigating the CIA.  He has special prosecutors replacing the FBI's, which I remind you is very similar to what the Nazi's did.  They had their own courts and prosecutors, outside the law essentially.  This is very dangerous and must be brought to the forefront!

A bill is being talked about, which would give Obama emergency control of the internet.  Does anyone see where an abuse of power could take place?  Lets imagine that things continue to get worse and tens of millions of American's want to storm the White House.  What if Obama shuts down the internet in America?  How could we coordinate?  Any other number of abuses could be used, and that is the reason this must be stopped.

Of course the healthcare bill and cap and trade are still on the table, and they must be stopped.  The healthcare bill especially, since once it is put into place, removing it will be nearly impossible.  As for Cap and trade, I would like it stopped, but imagine just for a second...  It is voted in, NBC has billions caught up in the carbon trading market.  Republicans come in and repeal it, costing NBC billions.  It could ruin NBC, so it could be good lol.  Anyways, that is wishful thinking I guess.

The tide is turning on democrats, but we MUST not allow republicans to simply sweep back into power.  Now is the time to force republicans to choose whether they will be conservative, or not.  This two party system will only continue to ruin our country if we do not force them to change their ways.  Glenn Beck is doing an "In or Out 2010" list where there are simple choices any congressmen must make. 

1. I believe in a balanced budget and therefore will vote for a freeze in government spending until that goal is realized.

2. I believe government should not increase the financial burden on its citizenry during difficult economic times therefore I will oppose all tax increases until our economy has rebounded.

3. I believe more than four decades of U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a travesty therefore I will support an energy plan that calls for immediately increasing usage of all domestic resources including nuclear energy, natural gas, and coal as necessary.

4. I believe in the sovereignty and security of our country and therefore will support measures to close our borders except for designated immigration points so we will know who is entering and why and I will vehemently oppose any measure giving another country, the United Nations, or any other entity, power over U.S. citizens.

5. I believe the United States of America is the greatest country on earth and therefore will not apologize for policies or actions which have served to free more and feed more people around the world than any other nation on the planet.

Those are all things that any democrat or republican should be able to agree with.  We must take it further on our republicans.  We must vote out those who are not supporting conservative values.  Get those like Graham and McCain out of there!  Do it now, before republicans come back into power, otherwise it will be too late.  I have heard some say that it would be possible for a 100 seat swing in 2010 in the house.  If that is true, I believe at least 10 of those must be third party.  The power of the two party system must be decreased, if this country is ever to come back from ruin. 

Now is the time to get involved!  Now is the time to email you congressmen.  Now is the time to attend protests.  Now is the time to get informed.  Now is the time!  We are at a crossroads and how we collectively act will shape the future of this rebuilding.  Do we want to live in a country where we are not free to own property, or choose our healthcare, or our jobs, or our education?  We want freedom, and if we are to have it, we must let our voices be heard!  Time to let go of any political correctness! Time to bring facts to the table against the shouters!  Time to be louder than the shouters!  Time to make a difference!

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

I've taken some time off, so sue me.  hehe.  Sorry about the break.  I got a job that is taking up lots of my time right now and I am pretty tired afterwards.  This thought hit me this morning and I finally have some time to put my thoughts into words.

Obama has spent and spent and spent to try and not only help his cronies, but help the economy too.  He is taking this advantage of crisis to input as much socialism as he possibly can.  Fortunately, the people, and some democrats, are waking up and rejecting the healthcare bill so far.  Cap and Trade didn't fare well either previous to that.  So lets take a look at what has happened so far, with all the pet projects we have paid for.

Our economy is stable, for the time being (I will cover that later in this piece), and some have announced the recession is over.  The stock market has risen slightly in response to all the money pouring from our government into the economy.  Free cash is coming left, right and center.  Cash for clunkers is one example of this, though this will hurt us and drive the cost of vehicles up in the long run.  Much of the stimulus money was spent on Obama's cronies, so while it helps slightly, we do not even come close to getting the best bang for our buck.  It also increases corruption(if thats possible) and will again hurt us in the long run.  The take over of GM will kill the American auto industry by forcing GM to make decisions based on politics instead of economics.  The banks owing our government billions will also give our government power over them and will allow them to force their will upon the banks.  Say the government wants a certain minority group to get a special treatment, the banks will be forced to comply(more housing problems is foreseen here I believe). 

That is a quick summary of what is going on in the economy.  I know I didn't cover many things and some of them important, but that is not the focal point of this piece.  I want to know what is going to happen.  Where are we going from here?  Is the recession really over?  It seems so, unless we take into account the common sense of what other countries must be thinking right about now. 

According to:http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

2.5 trillion dollars of our debt is owned by foreign countries, and that stat is from May 2008.  I would gander a guess that number is well over 3 trillion by now.  At that time China had over 500 billion of it and they are also the one most quickly buying from us, so I would venture to say that they are buying a majority of what we are putting up right now, leaving them approaching 1 trillion themselves.  China and Russia have been front runners in trying for a new world currency.  They believe we have not been responsible with our dollar and with that, they would like to remove the dollar as the world currency.  The government is already finding it tough to coax Americans into buying the Treasury bonds because we believe the same as China and Russia on this matter.  How does this work out if foreign countries refuse to buy our bonds from us, or worse if they sell their bonds back to us.  What do we do?

What is a motivator for people buying bonds from the government?  Safe investment + good interest return =  good investment right?  Up until now, they have been an extremely safe investment, but are they still?  Several economists believe not and Moody's has lowered all state bonds to a negative rating (I forget the exact rating, but you can search that yourself).  The Federal government rating is not as low, but is it far behind?  The spending habits of the feds have been worse, far worse, than the states, only there is one large difference.  The states cannot print their own money.  With the federal government printing its own money, they can fall back and in times of need, print enough to make it through and keep their investments safe(I say that, but it should never be used in this manner).  This is also the power they have abused and people no longer have faith that the dollar is rare enough to be worth something.  So with foreign governments refusing to buy bonds our government is forced to do one of two things.  1) Print the money or 2) Sell bonds.  Option one will inevitably lead to a crash in our economy not seen since hyperinflation of the Third Reich.  This cannot happen or our country will undergo a revolution, in my opinion.  Option two is what I have been talking about and have given reasons as to why this option will be tough.  How can they get people to buy their bonds?  They MUST raise the interest rate.  The security of the bonds are not what they once were and to make the risk worth it, the return must rise.  What happens here?  Inflation occurs.  All interest rates will rise and the dollar value will fall.  If foreign governments actually sell their bonds, it would increase this reaction by multiples.

Now, our government must make one of those choices, but the story does not end there.  Once they choose option 2(while secretly doing option 1 as well), if we continue spending, the interest rates will continue to rise as the security of the bonds decreases.  This inevitably leads to the same result as option 1. 

The only way out is for our government to spend a low enough amount to create a surplus, and fast, to bring our debt under control.  With that, our bonds can once again be worth something and foreign governments will feel safe investing in our country again.  It is a snowball effect each way.  Once the ball gets rolling in one direction, it continues to roll and gain momentum.  We just have to choose the right side of the hill to roll down.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

Alright, so the cap and trade passed the house, so it gives us a chance to see which Republicans must go next election.  I got the list with the numbers off:  List

Bono Mack (CA) 202-225-5330
Castle (DE) 202-225-4165
Kirk (IL) 202-225-4835
Lance (NJ) 202-225-5361
Lobiondo (NJ) 202-225-6572
McHugh (NY) 202-225-4611
Reichart (WA) 202-225-7761
Chris Smith (NJ) 202-225-3765

I wouldn't worry about giving them a call, unless you want to hassle them lol.  We need to spread these names far and wide!  These people must!  MUST!!!   be voted out next election!  MUST!

So, I have been researching a bit about czars.  According to, http://www.thedailycougar.com/czars-crumbling-us-checks-system-1.1764220 Reagan created the first czar in a 'Drug Czar', though Biden coined the phrase.  According to Glenn Beck, FDR was the first, though he named them dictators instead of czars.  Ive heard Nixon was the first to have a czar as well.  In any event, none of them can hold a candle to Obama.  Most all the czars of the past, were merely renaming current positions.  The head of some department would become the czar, for example.

Obama is doing something much different here, as he is creating czars for the purpose of having unrestricted authority over their respective jurisdictions, given by Obama himself.  Who do these people answer to?  Congress?  Most certainly not.  They answer to Obama, and Obama only.  It is like the cabinet members being appointed without congressional approval, only much more legal authority falls upon these czars than cabinet members.  They do not fall under the triangle of power that our constitution has set up.  Obama is intentionally creating these positions to obfuscate the constitution.

His Czar list can be found here: Obama Czar list

One of the most frightening?  The Pay Czar.  The job of the Pay Czar is to regulate the compensation of employees at companies that received financial aid.  Now, lets ignore that the financial aid was illegal for a moment.  I am slightly torn here because they took the aid and are no longer fully private, but does anyone see where this is headed?  What about regulating pay for all private businesses, whether they received aid or not?  He has already said that his goal is redistribution of wealth, so what is to stop him?  His conscience will clearly not do it, and if they are breaking the law already, that will not stop them either.  Simply put, there is nothing that will stop him from taking this pay czar to depths of control never seen in America.

We have a green-jobs czar as well.  Heck, we even have a Guantanamo Closure Czar, and the closing of Guantanamo is looking less and less likely.  Why are these people here?  Lets say the department of energy cannot get something done to force expensive untested energy down our throats, how will the government force the issue?  The Green-jobs Czar decides he is going to create some stipulations and bada bing, bada boom, environmental activists have their way, without going through the legal processes set up by our Constitution.

When I first began hearing about Czar's, I wasn't very concerned, but the more I hear, the more dangerous they are to the people.  If any whim of an opinion crosses their mind, they can move it into law with the enforcement of the executive branch, without using the legislative branch in the least.  Let's keep our eyes on this issue, because the amount of power at the fingertips of these collective czars is incredibly large. 

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

I haven't been able to spend time researching, so Ill just put some of my thoughts up for now.

What is with the Unions and this administration?  If I wasn't pissed off about the unions enough before this, they are side-stepping contracts by jumping to the government for help with these bond payments.  This should not be handled by anything other than what the law says! 

Pay Czar?  How far is Obama going to take these Czars?  Step one is controlling pay of those who took tarp money, step two is expanding based on interstate commerce laws.  They will act like those CEO's making all this money are affecting interstate commerce and will control the pay of everyone.  The interstate commerce clause was not meant for this! 

Palin should be back in the fray in 2012.  It is clear, to even democrats and independents now, that those accusations brought against Palin were false.  Conservatives need to shove those facts down the throats of each and every person they meet for the next 3 years.  She can be a person to rally behind, so lets get her back on track.

Obama thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear capabilities?  What is our country coming to?  Israel will not allow this to happen and we will abandon them in their time of need.  That is my prediction.

Experts say this recession is going to end around years end, so Ive read, but on what grounds do they base this?  Slowing rates of unemployment drops?  See, my father owns a manufacturing business and has noticed no great increase in orders, which means that in 6 months, we won't be on any major road to recovery.  Manufacturing is about 6 months ahead of time.  These experts are all political instead of looking at the facts.  Countries are shying away from the dollar now.  China will not buy anymore.  Russia is selling the bonds they do have.  What does that do to the value of the dollar?  Down down down.  We are printing money like paper, what does that do to the value of the dollar?  Down down down.  The signs are all against the dollar.  Even if all this spending gives us a temporary relief from this recession, it creates a cliff we are heading towards and very soon.  All this spending is forcing other countries to turn away from the dollar, which then causes it so lose its value, so we must increase our spending even more to make up for the inflation.  Its a slippery slope and we are putting on our skis.  What would be my solution?  Remove unnecessary regulations.  Add ones where loopholes are being found.  Creating a larger government is not a solution that can last.  This would also be a perfect time to wean people off of welfare as a recovery begins.  During recovery the most amount of jobs are probably open.  Add regulation after regulation to the welfare program until people are almost forced off of it.  My thought on that anyways.

On my trip to Europe, I noticed how...simple their lives were.  I felt like I was back in the 50's or something.  I also noticed lots of hypocrisy, based on what they scream our way.  I noticed lots of them driving, unlike what they claim.  The only reason they do less driving is because gas is about $6 a gallon.  Plus their countries are so much smaller, it is much different than the United States.  Racism is also something that they always claim we are, yet I only saw about 100 non-white people in all of my visit and I did not stay static on my trip.  We started in Frankfurt, drove along the Rhine north and broke off stopping in The Netherlands.  Visited Amsterdam the next day and stayed up there another night.  Drove to Omaha beach and stayed there a night.  Drove to Paris, visited the city and stayed there for the night.  Stopped in Strasbourg, France to view the Notre Dame of Strasbourg and continued on to Matrei, Austria.  Stayed there for 4 nights while visiting Dachau, Munchen and Salzburg before staying our last two nights in Mosbach, Germany.  They claim we are racists, yet we have the most diverse population in the world.  How dare they judge us! lol  On some other notes, their happy socialist lifestyles are not all they are cracked up to be.  First of all, the average person makes less dollars, yet alone Euros after the exchange rate, than us.  The Euros then go and buy less than our dollar does in the US.  Instead of paying say $50 for some shoes, you pay 60 euros.  So it would be like the average person making around $25,000 or so over here.  Our lifestyles are so much higher than theirs it cannot even be compared, yet democrats clamor for their living conditions.  God help us.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

I just got back from a long family European vacation, so that is the reason for my long break.  I need a day to recuperate, then I will be back strong.  Sorry for the break.

So, the new question for liberals is: Should Truman have been tried for war crimes for dropping the A-bomb on the Japanese?

Some say yes, and some say no. 

Let me first say to those of you liberals who support going after Bush, but say Truman should not have been, lets just review a couple facts here.

Bush reasonings:  3 prisoners were waterboarded. 

Truman reasonings: 2 Atomic Bombs dropped on 2 Japanese cities causing over 200,000(est) deaths of civilians.

How can you possibly, with facts, state that Bush committed war crimes and Truman did not?  It's impossible.  Plain and simple.  If you believe this first case, you are simply doing it for partisan reasons. 


Then there are those who believe neither should be tried(or should have been).  There is no reasoning that needs to be made from me here.  I cannot come up with a single argument in which either should be tried, so I will move on to my last case.

Those that think both should have been tried or should be tried.  First I will break down the Truman case more solidly then I will move to Bush. 

Truman:

To understand why the bomb was dropped, one must understand the circumstances under which is was done.  So, I will use one such piece of information, which is the invasion plans for Japan.  The United States had plans for if Japan did not surrender, and they would not have if we did not drop the bomb.  What would have happened if we did not drop the bomb?

Operation Downfall had two parts and some estimates for casualties were taken.  Operation Olympic is the plans for invading Kyushu and that island alone.  Operation Coronet was the second part of the invasion and would take place near Tokyo

"In a study done by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff in Apr 1945, at least 456,000 casualties were to be expected for Operation Olympic alone."http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=54

"Low numbers are quoted as reasons to do the invasion, 125,000 for Olympic and to end the war. High numbers, one million US casualties for Downfall"http://www.ww2pacific.com/downfall.html

"Based on the numbers of Japanese troops they believed were available to repulse an invasion and on the brutal fighting spirit they had shown in previous engagement, military planners estimated nearly 500,000 casualties in the invasion of Kyushu with over 100,000 fatalities. For the invasion at the Kanto plains, they estimated 1.2 million casualties with over 260,000 fatalities. To put that in perspective, overall in the war, including both the war in Europe and the Pacific, the U.S. suffered a little over a million casualties with around 300,000 deaths. Operation Downfall, if even close to military estimates, would account for a greater number of American casualties then all the rest of WWII combined. "http://www.pikerpress.com/article.php?aID=1459

This is just in US casualties, imagine the Japanese civilians as we came in for the invasion.  They were brainwashed so entirely, that whole towns ran off cliffs as we invaded other smaller islands.  Would they be defending their homeland vigorously as we came through?  You bet they would!  I have heard millions being the number of people that would died, up to 10 million, but that is the highest end.  Certainly nobody could argue that less than a million would die in the invasion, on the Japanese side alone. 

"216,627 troops were surrendered on Kyushu alone"http://www.ww2pacific.com/downfall.html

Their soldiers fought to the death, unlike the western style fighting in Europe.  If there was over 200,000 soldiers defending that island, it is a good bet that over 90% of them would die for us to succeed. 

Simply put, hundreds of thousands more people would have died if we did not drop the A-bomb on Japan.  There is no way around the facts of that.  In troops alone the numbers would easily exceed 500,000 combined.  Add in the patriotic civilians and the numbers grow exponentially. 

So how can one charge Truman with war crimes if he saved hundreds of thousands of lives? 

For more information I recommend watching a special about it from the history channel.  I have it on my DVR, but you can buy it if you like.  Maybe Ill find a way to get it off my DVR and onto the internet or something. 

http://shop.history.com/detail.php?p=69228M

Bush

Bush is more a case of opinion than anything.  Not a single person has died from interrogation techniques used.  Only a total of 3 people were waterboarded and information was given to us which saved American lives.

"the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques... Before the CIA used enhanced techniques ... KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' "http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/04/did_enhanced_interrogation_sav.html

The CIA memo contends that prior to waterboarding being used Mohammad was not only "...uncooperative but also appeared contemptuous of the will of the American people to defend themselves." However, the CIA contends that after Mohammad was subject to the waterboard technique, he became "...cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles."
http://www.examiner.com/x-6709-LA-Legal-Profession-Examiner~y2009m4d21-Did-Waterboarding-save-Los-Angeles-lives?cid=exrss-LA-Legal-Profession-Examiner

The evidence of waterboarding giving us useful information is out there for all to read.  With that, waterboarding saved American lives at the expense of some displeasure of an enemy to our country. 

Keep in mind that throughout this moral judgement, these terrorists do not fall under the Geneva convention, for they are not dressed in uniform.  According to law, there is no case against Bush for war crimes.

I would like to take this moment to put forth my opinion on the matter.

Torture is necessary if we believe a person has information we need.  Other techniques should come first, but if they do not budge, the President should be allowed to give authorization to waterboarding without being held for war crimes.  If we go down this path of, trying any former president who has a different opinion, of war crimes, we will be handcuffing ourselves from defending this country.  Other techniques were used against Khalid Sheik Mohammed and he did not budge.  I do not support waterboarding of all prisoners, but why would we put ourselves at a disadvantage by removing a way of gaining intelligence.  Why would any prisoner give up any information if they know for certain that they will not have to worry about any inconveniences while in our care?  Even the possibility of threatening them is gone.

Both men saved lives in a calculated move that helped our country and hurt our enemies.  Truman ended up saving Japanese lives as well, and Bush didn't kill any extra terrrorists while interrogating them.  How any sane person could hold them for war crimes is beyond me. 

PS, sorry about the short break.  School is coming to a close and projects and finals have taken up more time lately.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

So, I was gathering information on our welfare and education system, when I felt an urge to write on our mortgage crisis in detail.  Im listening to this book by Mark Levin called 'Liberty and Tyranny:A Conservative Manifesto' and he mentioned something that I did not know about the housing crisis.  I heard about it, but did not understand it.  It really opened my eyes to how incredibly screwed we all are lol.  FYI, I recommend that book to anyone who reads.  Spectacular book.

It all starts with derivatives.  If you do not know what they are, they are, as used by the banks, allowing outside companies to invest in the mortgages banks loan.  For example, AIG could pay Bank of America 200k for a loan worth 250k based on the risk of the loan.  AIG can then make 50k off the loan if it pays off and the bank gets a quick 200k back for it.  You ask why a bank would do that?  Well, it all starts with the CRA bill.

The bill: CRA bill: Clinton

Notice part B:"It is the purpose of this chapter to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions."

What does that entail?  One example, is that if banks wanted to merge, their CRA score would need to be high enough.(City Journal)  Or if a bank wanted to buy another bank, their CRA score would need to be high enough.  There are some other things I have heard, such as the interest rate from the fed to that bank being worse based on their score, but I cannot verify that, so it is hearsay. 
Here is also another example: IBDeditorials
"April 1998
HUD announced a $2.1 billion settlement with AccuBanc Mortgage Corp. for alleged discrimination against minority loan applicants." 
Lawsuits are now being done to banks who don't have a high enough CRA score.  Would that be motivation enough?

So lets start after the CRA bill has been passed shall we?

Banks are now beginning to lend to higher risk persons to keep their CRA score high enough for the federal government.  By doing this, it leaves less money for less risky loans and it is more likely the bank will not have the profits they would by otherwise using the money to loan to safer people.  Subprime lending has already been started by the banks at this time, but they are looking for an easier way to keep their CRA score high enough without taking the risk themselves.  What do they do?  Create derivatives in the banking industry.

Before I go any further, it is important to note the effect subprime lending had on housing prices.  Suddenly people feel they can buy more expensive homes and more people are then moving and buying homes.  Housing prices begin to rise because of this.



According to that graph prices began to rise shortly after Clinton signed the CRA bill in 1995.  That red line should always be fairly flat even if the blue line moves up.  Housing up until 1995 was always close to the inflation rates, but what the subprime lending did was make affordable housing, not affordable.  Without this bubble, we do not have this crisis today, but since we do, it is important to know to what extent our trouble has expanded.

Lets imagine for a moment that derivatives were not in existence during this crisis.  What is the outcome?  Banks are forced to loan within their means and while the economy was booming, all was fine and dandy, until 2006.  Starting in 2006 (mysteriously the year democrats took over congress) the economy leveled and the prices of housing began to fall.  Also the price of gas was hitting all-time highs which put extra stress on the average person.  With the prices of housing falling, people began to get upside down in their loans and with other prices rising due to oil costs, they could not make their payments.  What happens, but defaults begin to rise.  Not just the higher risk loans, but loans from the average household.  Banks are now caught in a trap where they have no money and people are not paying in as they should anymore.  Banks collapse, but the problem is only within the banks means and only found in the banking industry.  It is hard, but manageable. 

Lets bring Derivatives back into the equation.  What happens now?

So, we are at the phase where banks are trying to find easy ways to avoid the risk and keep their CRA score high for the federal government.  They start allowing other companies to invest in the mortgages for profits.  Sure the banks take a minor hit on each one, but they turn around and loan the money anyways and their CRA score is raised at a small loss.  The banks also don't have to worry about the risk of those mortgages, so in the end, they probably come out even on the money side, and their CRA score is much higher for it.  As we move to 2006, all is fine and other companies are making profits as loans are paying off so far.  As the housing bubble bursts though, risky and non-risky loans start defaulting as they would have without derivatives.  What is the problem now?  Banks are stuck with these loans and are going into major debt as they would have.  A problem added on top is other companies who invested in the mortgages, are now underwater as well. AIG was a major investor in these loans and look how that has panned out for them.  Instead of the problem being concentrated, it is spread out.  The banks were able to lend more money due to the investors paying off the loans immediately, so they turned around and made more loans.  The banks are in just as much trouble as if derivatives did not exist, however we have loads of debt spread out among many companies now. 

Just how much trouble are we in?

I have heard numbers as high as 1 quadrillion, or 1000 Trillion, but I will use a more credible number, though not less scary.
According to Warren Buffet we have a $516 Trillion derivative market waiting to burst on us. 
Derivatives New Ticking Time Bomb

There isn't enough money in the world to pay this off.  This is why the government MUST stay away. 

This has two scenarios.
1)Government gets involved
2)Government stays an observer and repeals laws that caused this

1)
If the government gets involved they are putting the entire country on the hook for this money and it is impossible to pay back.  It will inevitably end in bankruptcy for our country and possibly anarchy with all our welfare programs running dry.  Is there another scenario?  I do not believe I see one.  The housing bubble has still got a long way to fall until prices are back where they should be and I don't see it stopping before that time.  I showed you that video of Beck where we are still at an inflation price of 170k and we need to fall to 100k for prices to be even with inflation.  As the prices continue to fall, our economy cannot turn around.  The people will be in too much debt for the economy to flourish as it did before, because we will have no money. 

2)
The government stays on the sidelines.  This is preferable, though we will still have some rough times.  The banking and companies invested in the loans, will crumble, but the country will not be on the hook for it.  They will be able to rebuild because all the debt is circular in a way and once one falls, it is a house of cards, but the debt will not be the same kind of debt like if we owed China all those trillions.  Declaring bankruptcy and dissolving is the best way to go as it dives our economy into a depression, but it removes the toxic debt that would be hanging over us.  Our country would not need to declare bankruptcy in this case and our country can be allowed to recover.

Neither case is a necessarily good scenario, but tough decisions need to be made.  I know Obama can't even decide whether he is for, or against going after Bush's administration on torture, but he needs to be a leader right now. 

In my ideal scenario, the government would lower taxes and spend less.  The people then have more money to spend, which would hold the economy at least steady.  The people would also have enough money to pay their loans and thereby being a sort of "bailout" to the banks, though the money is not stolen from the people, but their principles on their houses is being paid off.  With payments coming in the banks are able to stay afloat and possibly find a way to slowly fix the problem.  The debt is not spread across the country where the average person must pay for it.  Imagine how much money the banks would get in this scenario?  Our GDP the past couple years was something around 13 trillion I believe.  What portion of your paycheck goes to your house?  I know many people are paying over $1000 per month on their house, so Ill use that number, even though I believe it to be pretty low.  $12,000 a year is probably close to a quarter of the average household spending.  With a GDP of 13 trillion and 10 trillion of it in the private sector, I would venture to say that banks would get about 2.5 trillion from the people paying their mortgages.  Its a natural bailout and our freedoms are not trampled.  It is easy to see why %5 of loans defaulting is killing the banks.  %5 of 2.5 trillion is 125 billion.  That is where our problem would probably lie if derivatives were not in the equation. 

One last thing I want to look at is what would have happened if the CRA bill had not been passed?  The subprime lending markets would not have been introduced and housing prices would not have skyrocketed.  The housing bubble would therefore have nothing to burst and we would not have this problem.  I don't think anyone can deny that the CRA bill caused housing prices to rise and rising housing prices is the main ingredient to this entire debacle. 

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

Article 2
Article 3
Article 4
Article 5
Article 6
Article 7
Bill of Rights
Amendments 11-27

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President"

You know, when I first heard that Obama was not born in America, I doubted there was any truth to that claim.  However, as time passed and he still did not show any proof, I am beginning to wonder if he was indeed born in another country.  Why would he not come forth with proof if he has it?  If it doesn't make sense, then it probably isn't true and it doesn't make sense to withhold information of him being born inside the country if he was born here.

"The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state."

All that ranting and raving about citizens vs other states and they change the law within a decade.  So their powers are now even less than during the Federalist Papers and during that time I couldn't find where all these social programs would fall under. 

"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Could anyone find a way to put what Fonda did during Vietnam, not in the basket of treason?  Clearly adhering and giving aid to our enemies.  I could certainly twist other things to appear as treason as well, but I won't for now. lol

"The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution"

We must hold them accountable to this oath!  WE must!!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Make no law...establishing or prohibiting.  It says nothing about public displays having anything to do with religion.  I believe that public displays should be able to have religious symbols is the majority of people approve of it.  This offense taken by minorities must stop.  It does not take away any freedoms by a majority of the town approving a manger scene.  There is no wall of separation between church and state either.  That is all smoke and mirrors.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

You go Texas!!!  It is about time a state stood up and said they aren't going to take it anymore! 

"XVII - U.S. Senators to be elected by direct popular vote

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913."

Democracy is just a prelude to oligarchy which means that it is not sustainable and hence is why our founders did not choose a democracy, but a Republic.  I do like having many different ways our representatives get elected.  1913 is a time when Wilson was president which means his progressive movement towards oligarchy was in motion.  This just reasserts to myself, that my first intuitive belief on this subject is correct. 

"XXIII - Presidential vote for the District of Columbia

Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961."

Why?  Is St. Paul separate from the rest of the state when voting for Governor?  Why should DC be "special"?  Elitists I tell ya...

Well, that was all for the Constitution.  Time to start some research!

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


Article 1 Basically a summary of the legislative powers.

"and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal."

I found this to be an interesting statement.  What if a party somehow took hold of 81 senators or 80% of the House?  They could vote on anything they choose and withhold the votes from the public.  At that point it would be clear which party was doing the damage, so it might not matter much, but this is an interesting law.  I wonder how often they do withhold their votes from us.

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have increased during such time; and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office."

I remember, I wondered about a person holding a state office while holding a federal office.  It seems by this wording, because the state offices are not under the authority of the United States, it is lawful for a person to hold two such offices.  Not that I would personally want that, but it is possible.

"If any bill shall not be returned by the president within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law."

I was under the impression that liberals were constantly complaining about Bush doing something of this sort.  What did they call it....I forget, started with an 's' I think.  It seems he simply cannot pocket the bill, since it would therefore go into effect. 

"To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:"

I am going to try and find some reasonings that Congress cannot tax a certain individual at a higher rate than others.  Im talking about the AIG bonuses here, not progressive tax rates.  This doesn't seem to cover it completely.

"No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Is this it?  It says proportion, but it seems to put this direct tax as a tax to the States.  But, alas...

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever sources derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

It would have nothing to do with a certain person...this is not it.

"or law impairing the obligation of contracts"

This would force the AIG bonuses to go through essentially.  They were contracts and the government cannot intervene here.  Im not all for these bonuses, but once congress gave the money and put the wording for them, nothing they can do about it.  Don't give them money in the first place!

Ok, so the rest will be done tomorrow night.  I haven't actually read through the entire Constitution before.  I have read much of it at different times through researching issues, but never all the way through.  It is incredibly easy to understand after reading the Federalist Papers lol.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

Before I begin with my remarks, if you look back to the first paper I wrote on, I asked you to keep in mind how the second amendment was parsed.  Is it any easier to decipher?  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Here is my analysis of the second amendment: The Right to Bear Arms?

So what did we learn from the Federalist Papers?  One thing is for sure, they thought through just about everything imaginable at that time.  Not only that, but they specifically said things would arise they had not thought of, so for that reason they left the Constitution open for amendments by the government.  What does that mean to us? It means that everything specifically put into the Constitution, was put there as an unchangeable law for the duration of our republic.  The only types of things that were put into the Constitution were those things the founders knew would never be outdated, and with that it makes those mentioned all the more powerful.  So on the basis of all those in the Constitution are undoubtedly the final arbiter of our country, lets delve into what they covered throughout these papers.

A quick summary of topics:
Foreign influence
Intra-relations
Reason for a Union, covering many reasons for it
Removal of current Articles of Confederation
Powers for Defense
Taxation
Republic reasonings
Powers in the Constitution
States' powers
Structure of new Government
House of Representatives
The Senate
Executive Branch
Judicial Branch

As you can see they covered a wide range of topics, which spread to all things and reasons for why a republic government, the way our Constitution was providing it, was best for our country.  Inside each reasoning, PUBLIUS took the time to cover the objections against the Constitution.  Do you believe Obama is bringing up objections to his stimulus plans and then reasoning as to why his plan would work over another plan?  He has done nothing of the sort and with that, the people do not trust him.  PUBLIUS pitted his reasonings against their arguments and presented both to the people, which let them decide where their loyalties would lie.  They didn't coax the people into making a quick decision even though the current government was in shambles. They allowed the democratic reasonings to see through to the most logical solution and they simply put the facts out on the table for all to see.  I dare say it would be tough to get the authors of these wasteful bills in congress to write a 5 page paper describing why they believe this spending is better for our economy than saving that cash or using it on something that actually needs it, and then dispersing it to the people for their decision.  Obama began his campaign talking of transparency, but I have seen nothing of the sort.  Instead I hear a bunch of double talk and lies, while covering up all his misgivings.  The people are beginning to get angry and that feeling will continue to grow as Obama continues down this path of corruption. 

Lets pick apart some of these issues a bit.

They began with all the reasons a union was needed.  What would go wrong without a union?  How would a union benefit all the states?  What would relations be like between the states, with and without a union?  How would other countries perceive us, with and without a union?  A union would bring like minded people together in a republic that would strengthen our power around the world, while removing strife between the states.  They also mentioned how the states would become part of a larger puzzle and would need to follow an all encompassing Constitution.  They covered the positives and negatives, though the negatives were few and far between if the Constitution was created solely for the good of the people.  This is where he went into how the Constitution would work.

Powers of Defense was covered first because that is the most important.  Without a way to defend what you have, how can any country expect to thrive economically or otherwise?  They talk about being able to create a military in peacetime, though the people were largely against it.  They(and when I say they, I mean PUBLIUS) didn't just say it was needed, like those in our government would today, but they explained, with well thought out reasonings, why we would need a military at all times, whether war or peace.  We must be able to strike at our enemies before they fire the first shot, or we will be at a disadvantage immediately.  Today liberals would rather us not fire a shot, whether we have been fired upon or not.  Already I see on these TH boards, the liberals talking of the 2nd amendment "be damned" because one day humans will realize we shouldn't fight and we will unequivocally throw down our weapons.  I swear that person is still searching for the tooth fairy.  Our founders knew that evil would never diminish and we must be able to fight it. 

Taxation was covered next and it mostly pertained to the States rights to taxation vs the federal government.  They knew that taxes was necessary as it obviously is to all governments.  These taxation papers were directed at the people concerned with the States losing their rights.  Of course a government needs revenue, but where should the line be drawn?  The Constitutionality of all programs should be called on to be proven.  Everything in these papers alludes to only those things which are found in the Constitution, because to go outside of it, would not be lawful by the federal government.  So, by and large, this portion of the papers can be ignored today because these forms of taxation are to be used, but only in a wise fashion and our government has failed to do that.  Our founders believed in a person receiving the fruits of their labor, but today we believe in everyone enjoying equal fruits without regard for the labor and that will result in a fall in productivity that only preludes a crash in the economy.  Responsibility can be the one thing pulled from this portion of the papers because they believed our government would do its best to tax only when needed, unless our government was run by a group unfit for office and with that they believed the people would vote them out.  Today we are too set on name recognition that the incumbents win most of the elections without too much trouble.  With responsibility of the government comes a responsibility of the people to hold THEM accountable.  We must do our job, so as to push our representatives to do theirs.

The reasonings behind their choice of a republic are explained and given reason to next.  The founders gave ample evidence going back through history as to why a republic would do best.  In my own knowledge of history, I believe the Roman empire can be the best example.  Before the Caesar's took control, they were a republic that was the envy of the world.  Somehow it seems that republics always turn out to be the envy of all others.  Why?  A republic brings all the best possible combinations to a form of government.  Laws rule the land instead of people.  With laws, a country can be stable and not depend on the opinion of a few for its wellbeing.  Freedom of the people is always a must for a positive form of government and a republic gives that better than any other.  We are free to choose our representatives and because we are a nation of laws, our personal freedoms will not be taken away whether by rulers or mob.  A republic also rewards those who put forth the most effort and thus becomes an economic behemoth which gives great prosperity to its people.  The highest standards of living will be found in republican governments.  What more could be wanted from a government?  It doesn't falter on any other issues that any other government would provide either.  For example the national defense will be as strong as any other, which has been proven by none other than the United States.  In this portion of the papers they also went through exactly how they would implement the republic and the small changes they would make where others went wrong.  It explained the checks and balances that would be formed in a circular manner to hold all those in power, in place by another.  With examples of past successes and failures they outlined how our government would be formed and, in extensive detail, why it would work.  Can you expect to hear that from Obama on the stimulus plans?  No, he is rushing them through before you get a chance to question it.  Why?  Because he knows there is wasteful spending, but he just wants to pass through his agenda whether wasteful or not.  Obama's agenda is all that matters now.  Our economy only comes second because the longer it stays depressed, the more time he has to infuse his programs into place.

An overview of the Constitution is reasoned next.  They look at if any powers given are wrongfully given or if the sum of them are dangerous to the people.  A run through the powers will show that the States still hold a major portion of the powers.  The people still hold the trump card on the federal government as well, and with that, the government would only be able to oppress the people if the population willingly votes for it.  I would venture to say that is happening now, but that is just my opinion.  Each and every power is defended if needed or explained if not.  The major reasons for having our government was mentioned and a liberal would find that the list is fairly short.  Only 6 items on the list with 4 of them being very specific, leaving two for all this wasteful spending to fall under, if you can even say they do.  In this portion, someone reading would find that the government is actually meant to do very little in our lives.  A major portion of its powers actually lie outside our borders while it either deals with foreign countries, or defends us from them.  Somehow today these powers have been magically expanded to include social programs that should have nothing to do with the government.  I believe that for any of these programs to pass, an amendment must be put into place, since its powers do not fall anywhere else in the Constitution.  At least then it would be constitutional and the people could see what is going on by a permanent change to the Constitution.  With that, this portion of the papers will give reason to those powers which are Constitutional, and by omitance, we can conclude those powers our government enjoys using today, that are not Constitutional.

With a federal government, the States would give up some rights, though a majority of them have to do with foreign relations as the States would not be individuals anymore, but part of a group and any State should not be allowed to deal with another country without speaking on behalf of the whole.  This is where it is considered whether a sum of the federal government's powers would be detrimental to the States or the people.  Being how few powers the federal government are actually able to hold by law, it is easy to see that it would not change much of the powers the States hold, besides foreign influence, and in that manner it only strengthens our position. 

The actual structure of the government is gone through from here on out for the most part.  Each part of the branches are gone through and reasoned as to why they were formed in such a manner.  The HoR are there to represent the will of the people, while the senate is the stabilizing factor with the same in mind.  The president is to represent the country and make decisions that only a single person can make such as military decisions or treaties.  The judicial branch is to keep our country in line with its laws, which all fall beneath the Constitution.  Their first and foremost job is to uphold the Constitution.  All branches have checks against each other to keep one from overwhelming the others with power.  The plan is for the HoR to have a major influence with the will of the people behind them, so when the government acts in a disingenuous way, it can be reeled back in.  However, if the will of the people is temporarily strayed by passion, the senate is to hold steady so as not to have the government changing on the whims of the people.  There is ample reasoning given for each branch on why this form will work best.  So far so good, yet the people have not held up their responsibility so how can we expect the government to do the same?  Hold them accountable and they will fall back in line.

After reading through these papers, it is hard to look past our Constitution ever again, if it ever was the case for yourself.  The wisdom of the people involved and time given to them to conceive such a document should give confidence to anyone doubting our Constitution.  The scrutiny of the people was high and it still passed the test.  Ample evidence was given in support of the system chosen for our government.  Human nature was taken into effect at every corner and it cleared those obstacles with flying colors.  The key to it all is the people.  We held the power then and we still hold the power.  We can vote out over half of all the representatives in our government today within 2 years if we choose.  If we are in such contempt with our government, why don't we?  I'm almost willing to vote for a new democrat, if I am not satisfied with my current republican representative.  Perhaps we should all be willing to vote out our incumbents if we are unsatisfied, whether they are part of our party or not.  Without the people holding the government responsible for its actions, how can we expect them to hold themselves accountable?  We are giving them a free pass right now and they are running with it beyond what we could have imagined a century ago.  These Federalist Papers clearly outline what our government is supposed to represent and what powers it is supposed to follow, and it is not hard to see our current government is well beyond those boundaries.  It is clear that the founders EXPECTED us to vote out those who were not representing us, not just vote for the lesser of two evils.  It is time to vote for someone that actually represents you, instead of not representing you less.  It is time for all Americans to be willing to vote third party if that is where their beliefs lie.  As Glenn Beck has been pushing for, it is time to stand up for your principles.  These Federalist papers count on us standing for our principles, so lets not back down. 

Thank you for reading.  This concludes my Federalist Paper series.  Time for the Constitution first and conservative values after. :)

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

Concluding Remarks
From MCLEAN's Edition, New York.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #85

"Among the pretended defects are the re-eligibility of the Executive, the want of a council, the omission of a formal bill of rights, the omission of a provision respecting the liberty of the press."

Now, I found this interesting.  Of those listed 4 defects, 3 of them have been implemented with 2 of them in the Bill of Rights.  I believe of all the arguments he went through in the entire paper, these are some of the best.  A council, being to the President I am guessing, is the only one not implemented and it is also, in my opinion, the weakest of the 4.  I do believe a limit on the number of terms for the President is good and bad, and if it were up to me, I would remove that law and rely on the people to be smart enough to remove someone detrimental to the country from office.  A bill of rights is a definite in my eyes and the liberty of the press came right along with it.  His argument is that mentioning it will bring the government around for an excuse to regulate it, but I believe with it stated in words the people will be more likely to stand firm against one doing such things if they understand that the government is not to do that.  Without it being mentioned at all, the people will not know whether he is able to do such things and cannot stand united.  Our founders must have felt the same in the end as a Bill of Rights was put into place along with the Constitution.

"who may acquire credit and influence enough, from leaders and favorites, to become the despots of the people"

Can anyone say Soros?  I do wonder how many democrats are on Soros' payroll.  If anyone has watched 24 this season, it has many high officials on the payroll of a genocidal country's leaders.  I am behind a bit, but that fact was found out in the first 9 or so episodes.  I am a firm believer that Soros does the same thing.  It is organized mafia really.  Legalized extortion. 

"Let us now pause and ask ourselves whether, in the course of these papers, the proposed Constitution has not been satisfactorily vindicated from the aspersions thrown upon it; and whether it has not been shown to be worthy of the public approbation"

Here is yet another difference between our founders and our current government.  During the time he wrote the Federalist Papers, the Articles of Confederation were in effect and it was showing to be ineffective.  The government was falling apart and there was nothing anyone could do.  Sound familiar?  Though the circumstances are different, much of feeling remains the same.  Obama came into office and he was left a bit of a mess.  Bush coasted through his last year or so and brought on some liberal policies while the housing bubble popped.  What did each of these two groups do?  Our founders took lots of time coming up with a Constitution that was able to withhold months of scrutiny from the people.  It was able to be defended on all fronts because of how thoroughly it was thought through.  Every possible angle was thought of and in the end, a nearly perfect masterpiece was written.  Had they offered anything less to the people, it probably would not have withstood all the criticism and would in all likelihood failed to pass.  Obama came out with half thought out solutions and passed laws before the plans were made.  It would be like passing a Constitution into effect without having written it yet.  Does anyone else see the complete differences between a group that did great things for this country, and Obama?  What he will do to this country has yet to be seen by history, but based on his organization skills of these plans he has put into effect, it doesn't seem to be starting out on the right foot.  He just hoped all this money would give us short term gains while he thought through more options.  The propping up of the economy will slowly diminish and we will be trillions more in debt while back in our same position only worse.

"let him reflect that the object upon which he is to decide is not a particular interest of the community, but the very existence of the nation"

And along those similarities we just had our past election falling along these lines.  We are at a crossroads right now and Americans are too caught up in entertainment to notice.  Socialism will give us some short term gains, but what will become of our country?  What freedoms will you have tomorrow?  That is the plan the democrats are following and the Republicans are following suit.  Only recently have they changed directions, at least on the surface, and started back towards the middle.  I, for one, still do not trust them and I feel that most conservatives feel the same.  It is one thing to vote conservative when your party is the one in power, but quite another to do it out of obligation for the base.  What will they do if we vote them back into power?  Continue down our slow path to socialism?  Or bring us back right?  I am forced to conclude that the former would be the case and I doubt that any of you reading would feel different.  I am all for a third party and the only way to start that is to select conservative republicans to join it.  Conservatives are the ones who give money to the republicans and when they hear of a third party, their charity will change hands.  It would be a smooth transition from Republican to say the American Tradition Party. 

"The compacts which are to embrace thirteen distinct States in a common bond of amity and union, must as necessarily be a compromise of as many dissimilar interests and inclinations."

Hence why our Constitution was not a document that gave all power over to the federal government.  States can handle themselves much more effectively than the federal government can.  The Constitution just gives a broad stroke of what the States must follow.  Our government was supposed to be nothing more than a central point where all States could remain binded.  Their military protection would be taken care of, their foreign relations, the intra-relations and some small ins and outs.  On the whole the States lives would remain unchanged.  Imagine that today.  Within each state I would venture to say that the State held more power than the federal government.  Sure the feds could overrule the States, but the day to day living was largely untouched by the federal government.  *closes eyes and makes a wish*

"The establishment of a Constitution, in time of profound peace, by the voluntary consent of a whole people, is a prodigy, to the completion of which I look forward with trembling anxiety."

One thing that largely separates our Constitution from nearly all others.  They had lots of time to perfect their ideas and run through as many possibilities as they could think of.  It has done so well that many other countries have their Constitutions modeled by ours.  To this day it is still a standard of what a Republican government should look like.  Lets not waste it.

And so that concludes my writings on each of the Federalist Papers.  I will do my own concluding remarks this weekend.  I do have 3 tests this week so I will take a short break.  I hope to do a fairly extensive conclusion to the federalist papers.  Check back then. 

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke