I will be taking tonight off due to a test I have tomorrow morning in a Machine Architecture class.  This will give all of you a chance to either catch up or read ahead.  Looking forward to continuing on our way tomorrow.  Maybe Ill try to do two tomorrow night being a weekend night.

Always remember:

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

The Same Subject Continued(The House of Representatives)
From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 12, 1788.
HAMILTON OR MADISON

Federalist Paper #53

"the period within which human virtue can bear the temptations of power"

Clyde, you mentioned term limits, well here would be a case for them, besides common sense.  The longer human are exposed to power, the more they become corrupt with it.  Some take longer than others, but they all fall in the end.  Without term limits this increases the number of people in each administration that are corrupt with power.  With more people corrupt with power, wouldn't that lead to bad decision making?  I think if Rush + others started harping on term limits, they could force congress into a decision, if say they allowed people to be grandfathered in.  That way those voting wouldn't lose power, yet all those after would only have a short time.  It could be possible, though it is still very unlikely.

"The important distinction so well understood in America, between a Constitution established by the people and unalterable by the government, and a law established by the government and alterable by the government"

I can say for certain that our congressmen do not know this difference themselves.  It isn't even on a yearly basis that the constitution is under attack.  Freedom of religion, rights to bear arms, freedom of speech, freedom of the press...are all under attack on a weekly to monthly basis by the left.  Any religious symbol is removed simply because it is religious.  God is removed from schools and kids cannot even wear Christian shirts in some places.  Gun control is ever growing and this new tax on ammunition is yet another step.  The fairness doctrine against radio is blatantly unconstitutional and restricts freedom of speech and that fairness doctrine spills over into freedom of the press.  The PC control crowd is getting out of hand and I hear now that a student who got suspended for wearing a straight pride shirt is fighting back.  There will be a backlash on this PC crowd...when is the question.  To go further, Obama is on a rampage to fundamentally change this country, when he has no right!  Unless he got rid of elections though, this country won't stay socialist for long I believe.  An economic depression will come like never before seen and it will change many minds. 

"to a government limited, as the federal government will be, by the authority of a paramount Constitution?"

Just another example of how the constitution is not simply a guide for congress to follow, but a document that if strayed from should be punishable against.  If only we could have our founders alive today to clear up this mess we find ourselves in.  Too bad we can't take a page from 'Underworld' and simply have them rotate decades and keep one alive at a time lol.  We desperately need a Supreme Court that will reign in our government and restrain it by the constitution for once. 

"No man can be a competent legislator who does not add to an upright intention and a sound judgment a certain degree of knowledge of the subjects on which he is to legislate."

Upright intention, sound judgement, knowledge of subjects...do any of these things describe our congress and president?  Today Obama said it was a good time to invest in the stock market.  Golly, do you think he was thinking at all when he said that?  How many in DC have been found corrupt with Kennedy, to Jefferson or Stevens, to all of Obama's candidates for cabinet members that haven't paid their taxes?  Across all party lines, these congressmen are nearly all crooks!  Sound judgement can clearly not be said when they will not even listen to the General of our army because of their political views.  Sound judgement is common sense, and socialism is against all common sense.  Knowledge of subjects is not something I could use to describe 90% of those in congress.  Having a bunch of lawyers voting on a budget is like having your kids organize your bills for the month.  Bad idea.  Most of them have no idea how ethanol is created or how it affects the atmosphere.  Many do not know how a nuclear power plant creates power.  Many of them have no idea of macro economics with the supply and demand graph for starters, and the few who do, haven't put up much of a fight the last 8 years.  I could go on and on, but it is fruitless when anyone with a pinch of logic can see that this sorry bunch is a lost cause.  And to think we are relying on them to jump start our economy.  For now we are doomed...

"A part of this knowledge may be acquired by means of information which lie within the compass of men in private as well as public stations."

And here is why they all lack knowledge.  They are all lawyers who only became lawyers to work for the government.  Most of them never had a regular private sector job, so how can they possibly know how capitalism works?  We need more actual representation of the average American in congress before anything starts getting better.

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

The House of Representatives
From the New York Packet. Friday, February 8, 1788.
HAMILTON OR MADISON

Federalist Paper #52

"The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government."

So I wanted to know what exactly he meant there so I checked it up. 
"Allow the right exclusively to property, and the rights of persons may be oppressed. The feudal polity alone sufficiently proves it. Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property or the claims of justice may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice."
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s26.html

You notice the conclusion our founders came upon.  Today Liberals have decided that class warfare is the way to go for gaining votes.  Promise free money to those who don't want to work to get it and they will elect you.  Just imagine if, say, our laws were that only people that pay a positive income tax to the government, can vote.  Do you think that we would get better reps in government?  You bet we would!  Every person voting would know that their vote counts more than it did.  They would keep themselves informed because they have something to lose if our government was irresponsible.  Currently those on the bottom only vote for those who promise the most and hence have nothing to lose and do not educate themselves.  I believe that voting should have stipulations based on contributions to society.  If you positively contribute to society, then that is enough to warrant a vote.  Uneducated voters have really messed up our system.

"very long and dangerous intermissions were often contrived by royal ambition."

Human nature here was the cause of a long and dangerous intermission.  In other words, human nature caused a decision to be made that was against logic in how the House of Commons was supposed to represent the people.  Human nature is greed and power.  Our republic government was set up so that the government would be held in check from greed and power, while the economy would work best with greed and power.  Currently we have DC full of greedy, power hungry people who wish to control the rest of the country.  Pelosi would love it if our country fell from power, but she was the king of us.  Socialism is the government running the economy, so all the checks and balances against them would be null if they controlled the private sector.  It would turn into a government full of greed and power going against the will of the people, while the economy ran best if mindless robots were instead its constituents.  More backwards thinking coming from the left.

"the greater the power is, the shorter ought to be its duration; and, conversely, the smaller the power, the more safely may its duration be protracted."

With something like that being said I wonder why they chose 6 years for senators.  Perhaps he will delve into that in a latter paper.

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

The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks
and Balances Between the Different Departments
From the New York Packet. Friday, February 8, 1788.
HAMILTON OR MADISON

Federalist Paper #51

"secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them."

Now, I guess it seems that his second point comes true even if the people vote for them in as often as every two years.  We have the likes of Murtha being re-elected on the basis of....well I have no idea.  He accuses our marines of being mindless killers and guilty of war crimes.  He ruins their lives in public without any evidence to prove his point.  He holds them guilty unless proven innocent.  The marines are then found to be innocent on all accounts and yet he will not even offer an apology!  This guy should be held accountable for his slander of these marines!  This guy should be tried for treason by aiding the enemy by handicapping our soldiers protecting his rights!  By some idiocy out in Pennsylvania he remains in office!  Do the people of his district have no conscience?  Do they not support the men and women of our fighting force?  Do they have no idea what people like Murtha are doing to this country?  Recently, I watched the entire series of Lord of the Rings and I came to a conclusion about a similarity.  Does anyone remember Wormtongue?  He is the guy who poisons the mind of the King of Rohan.  As Saruman plunders and kills across his borders, he accuses the captain of warmongering because he wants to ride out and kill those orcs.  As Islamic terrorists around the world continue attacking the west, the liberals are still accusing conservatives of warmongering.  There is an evil brooding in the east, but instead of a ring, a nuclear bomb will be the weapon most sought after by them.  I hope Israel eventually acts and does not allow our groping for the middle ground to ruin our country along with theirs. 

"But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others."

There is a difference here when we talk of encroaching powers compared to his scenario.  In his situation he brings light to the possibility of departments usurping power from each other.  Currently it is each department encroaching on the rights of the people.  The way this is supposed to work out is logical and should create fear in the government from encroaching on the people's rights.  First, our authority over the legislature and executive is much the same as the executive and legislative over the judiciary.  We elect the people who represent us and when we see them taking control of our rights we are supposed to hold them accountable and remove them from office!  Second, if the government moves swiftly and secretly to take over powers not held in the constitution, to create a tyrannical government(or less), the people have the 2nd amendment to call to their aid and a force never before seen on this earth will swallow the government whole.  There are enough guns and trained people around this country to take out any military force put against us.  We must only band together.  With those two rights of authority over the departments of the government, it was built in a way for us to maintain the status quo. 

"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?...If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

This is where socialism goes astray.  Human nature will never be able to sustain a socialism.  The only way socialism could survive would be for people to be robots without motives or feelings.  Capitalism takes humans drive for greed and power and uses it to its advantage.  There is a reason that the capitalistic societies are always much more productive than any other.  Socialism puts a person in a given spot and they are there whether they work hard or not.  That being the case, most every human will choose to lay back and relax.  Their work will get sloppy, productivity will go down, quality of products will go down and the society falls apart.  Sound familiar?  If you think about it, what has happened to our school system?  In capitalism, motivation and success is rewarded so people will strive for it.  Everyone wants to be rich, so they will work hard to get there.  Productivity goes up, quality of work goes up and the economy thrives.  That used to sound familiar, since it was our country as it was founded and was for many years after that. 

"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part."

And again here is a reasoning of why the second amendment was put into place.  The evidence to back the conservatives on this issue is so completely overwhelming I cannot for the life of me understand how liberals can even think about infringing upon our rights in this case. 

"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights."

I guess this would follow that if the state funds a gay pride parade, they should fund a Christian pride parade too right?  The freedom of religion right has been twisted so much, it is hard to find anyone that knows the actual words.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Now, does that say that the government cannot put a cross up on its city hall?  No!  It says that the government cannot declare a religion as the national religion and give money to it, but it also cannot stop anyone from expressing their religion to others.  Everyone always seems to forget the second part of that right.  There is also no wall between church and state as so many will have you believe.  More problems have happened since we removed all traces of God from schools than all the time before.  That should tell you something in itself.

"In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature"

Here we find a major difference in how conservatives govern compared to liberals.  Conservatives get the government as far away from the people as possible.  The less you notice them the better.  How can a majority of conservatives possibly oppress the others with a frame of mind like that.  On the flip side we have liberals who want the government at the center of each and every persons life.  If you make too much, it will be taken away.  If you are lazy, they will pay you to breathe.  If you give to charity, it will now be taxed higher than before (Glenn Beck talked about how this new bill has a tax increase for all charitable giving.  Check it out).  The government is at every street corner telling you what you can say, how you can say it and when you can say it.  Can you see how this could be an oppression of the other minority groups?  I can too.


To finish the above quote: "where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful."

What are democrats in the process of doing right now?  Exactly this.

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

Periodical Appeals to the People Considered
From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 5, 1788.
HAMILTON OR MADISON

Federalist Paper #50

"Is it to be imagined that a legislative assembly, consisting of a hundred or two hundred members, eagerly bent on some favorite object, and breaking through the restraints of the Constitution in pursuit of it, would be arrested in their career, by considerations drawn from a censorial revision of their conduct at the future distance of ten, fifteen, or twenty years? In the next place, the abuses would often have completed their mischievous effects before the remedial provision would be applied. And in the last place, where this might not be the case, they would be of long standing, would have taken deep root, and would not easily be extirpated."

To paraphrase, if it takes long to stop someone they will already be done with their act or be too far in to efficiently stop them.  Take a look at our socialist policies that have endured.  Welfare for example has been around for decades now.  There isn't a powerful enough person on the planet that could remove it since people now have the feeling of entitlement instilled in them.  Had the government noticed the change within 5 years of enacting the policy and saw it was a detriment on society, it would have been possible to get rid of it, though still tough.  Obama is now in the act of putting tons of socialist programs in motion and once conservatives jump back into power, we must IMMEDIATELY remove them from the budget.  In fact it would be in our best interest to start coming up with plans for removing a failed healthcare system, or lowering the minimum wage, or reopening domestic drilling, etc etc.  Plan a step ahead of where we are so when we do get there, we are ready for what we must do to protect this country from a financial dissolution. 

"In some of them it may, perhaps, as a single experiment, made under circumstances somewhat peculiar, be thought to be not absolutely conclusive."

Clyde, I think I have found a way we can go about getting rid of unconstitutional laws.  We work it like Jury duty, only on a larger scale.  We will get a jury of 100 people instead of 12 or whatever the number be.  In questioning to get to our 100, we ask them questions pertaining to their literacy of certain political events.  For example ask them to recite 4 or 5 of the Bill of Rights, then ask them who the current president is, vice president, speaker of the house and their current representing US senator.  That way we get people that are at least paying attention to politics.  We still only  need someone that is a regular citizen so too many qualifications may only narrow our search to certain political agendas.  Before the proceedings the people are then to read the constitution a handful of times each to base their own opinions off of.  Then each side gives their argument like a prosecution of the law, only this time unanimous is not needed, only a 2/3.  If 2/3 of the people say it is unconstitutional, it is gone no questions asked. Of course you will still get people who go in without any facts but are democrat and won't budge or something, but this is about as good as it gets.  A way to counter balance that would be to call a different jury for each couple of issues.  This type of proceeding could also work best for the treason cases, only those would have to be unanimous. 

"When men exercise their reason coolly and freely on a variety of distinct questions, they inevitably fall into different opinions on some of them. When they are governed by a common passion, their opinions, if they are so to be called, will be the same."

And here we have summed up the democrats!  Conservatives form their opinions on reason and facts.  Most don't come to a conclusion before researching the issue at hand themselves.  A well reasoned argument may help sway us into a direction if we cannot find a counter to it, and yet we won't truly believe until our own common sense sees that point of view as the truth.  Liberals on the other hand believe anything that is told to them by certain people.  When Bush was in power, everything he did was wrong because MSM said so.  Now that Obama is in power, everything he does is right because MSM says so.  I don't hear any liberals complaining about Obama's foreign policy and yet it is nearly the same as Bush's!  His strategy on Iraq is that of President Bush and yet not a peep.  What is right does not depend on what is happening, but on who is doing it for them.  Since MSM has brainwashed them so, it is not Obama doing what is right/wrong, but instead it is right because Obama is doing it.  A very backwards way of thinking if you ask me.

"because an extinction of parties necessarily implies ...an absolute extinction of liberty."

Do people not see that liberals are out to get rid of the conservatives in this country?  Why do they constantly harp on people listening to Limbaugh?  Instead of actually addressing the issues Rush brings up, they attack the listeners.  Does that even make sense to anyone with an unbiased viewpoint?  I can find no other reason for liberals being afraid of Rush other than they cannot possibly attack the actual issues he brings up.  Notice how the writers that get the most posts by liberals on TH are the ones who bring out the facts on the liberals.  If a columnist was on here and each week they talked about another liberal that might be from another planet because of the yellow tinge in his eyes, would liberals bat an eye at him?  Of course not, because it is not true.  Coulter and Malkin get hundreds of posts each week because their columns ring the most true.  And each time I read the columns, the liberals are not defending the points made in the column, but insulting Coulter/Malkin or the people listening to them.  As with Rush.  They are afraid of the people that speak the truth!  Had it not been for talk radio and Fox, I think Obama would have tried much more radical changes, because he knew he could get away with them.  As it stands we still have a small group that can inform the people.

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

Being most of the way through, but with many left, I wanted to ask people for some criticism.  I am covering these papers based on how it intuitively felt best.  I usually don't bother adding in specific facts or researching anything I don't already know.  I just read through it and when something pops in my head, I put it down. 

Is there anything I could do that would make it more interesting?  Or maybe make you more likely to include yourself in discussion? 

Ill probably stick to how I am doing it to start with, but adding anything to it wouldn't be a problem, so if any of you have any ideas or criticisms, now is the time to kill the messenger. hehe

Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government by Appealing to the People Through a Convention
From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 5, 1788.
HAMILTON OR MADISON

Federalist Paper #49

"...and how are the encroachments of the stronger to be prevented, or the wrongs of the weaker to be redressed, without an appeal to the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commissions, can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance?"

Once again they show the power of the people in the federalist papers.  I am saddened that if the people were allowed to vote on say...raising the minimum wage to $30/hr, they probably would.  The American people have become so ignorant on so many policies, that how can they be trusted with something like this anymore?  Congratulations to the democrats for bringing our education level down to that of a third world country. 

"wisest and freest governments"

To take that completely out of context, he is speaking of our government as the "wisest and freest".  One COULD argue that our government is still wise, though I think there is ample evidence to the contrary, but one could not even begin to argue that our government is the freest anymore.  Our country was founded on the principle of freedom and everything else fell behind it.  Now instead of freedom, we have energy policies that will bottleneck the market and skyrocket prices.  We have a nationalization of the banks occuring as we speak.  We have our healthcare being decided on by the government.  We have taxes being raised for the particular reason of redistrubting wealth.  Clyde, you mentioned trying them for treason, well I think the energy policies could be our best bet(theoretically).  Obama's policies, do not allow domestic drilling, they are intentionally forcing prices up so other energy will be used, and they are taxing certain types of energy out of business.  One could argue that these policies will intentionally and directly increase energy prices, which will slow the economy, which will hurt Americans.  Alternative energy is not ready to be a major part of the energy policies yet.  To force that upon them would only ruin our country since energy prices will jump and our economy will slow so much it will delay the introduction of new technologies because of the lower amount of R&D money. 
Treason:  -noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign....
The first definition of treason would be: the offense of acting...to harm..its sovereign.  Now, if one could prove the scenario I created above, is that not the definition of treason?  Raising prices will hurt us all, that is undeniable.  The only tough part is proving they are intentionally raising prices, which you can find quotes from an assortment of democrats on wanting gas prices to hit $5.  A quick quote found in a simple search gave me the following:

"HARWOOD: So could these high prices help us?

Sen. OBAMA: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment..."
http://thepage.time.com/obama-interview-on-cnbc/

Since democrats are slippery and claim that alternate energy is all ready for the big leap, at the very least you can prove that they are trying to overtake yet another market besides what they are already doing.  Soon our government will own nearly everything and we can call ourselves the UCS, the United Communist States.  Or, normally around the world when they have an oppressive government...United Peoples Republic of America.

"The reason of man, like man himself, is timid and cautious when left alone, and acquires firmness and confidence in proportion to the number with which it is associated."

And here we have our reason why media brainwashing is so effective.  Ill sit down and watch a debate and decide, by myself, who has won basing it upon common sense.  I will then keep watching and see what the media thinks about it.  More often than not, all liberals will try to skew what was said.  Had I not seen the debate myself, or had been preoccupied while watching, I would have to rely on their opinions and not be given the full truth.  This doesn't just happen on debates, but events and daily news as well.  If a person is on the fence about voting and missed the debate, he might flip through some channels and if all are saying Obama won the debate, or Kerry won the debate, they will then mark a positive in that persons column in their head.  They then read the newspaper the next morning and see that those journalists also believe Obama, or Kerry, dominated the debate and that person reading will think: "golly, everybody is on board for Obama, or Kerry, so they must be doing the right things.  Im going to vote for them".  An ignorant voter being swayed by the power of the media, instead of being informed on the facts by them.  Just imagine if conservatives had MSM on their side as the democrats do now.  McCain didn't get wiped out even with the media against him.  I think the Republicans would never leave power if the media was even unbiased.  It is my belief that if, miraculously, everyone knew the intent of each party, most of the democrat voters would not vote democrat.  The most conservative candidates would be in power for the duration of this country.

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

These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No
Constitutional Control Over Each Other
From the New York Packet. Friday, February 1, 1788.
MADISON

Federalist Paper #48

"It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it."

I ask, who is restraining the federal government from going beyond the constitution?  The supreme court certainly isn't doing their job, so who else even can?  The people!  I was watching Glenn Beck today and he made this exact point.  The media is SUPPOSED to be keeping an eye out for us, but they are too busy shining Obama's shoes to notice anything going on.  Most of them are lacking any brain function to know that Obama's policies eventually lead to the government owning the press.  Without the media, who else is there?  We have only ourselves.  The only way to learn the truth is to really listen to what Obama has to say and then check out the facts online.  More often than not, you will find that he lies on many accounts.  Pulling out the troops?  Well, he is at the same rate Bush planned on, yet all we hear is that he is pulling out our troops by August 2010, not the 50k that will remain.  The people must educate themselves on economic systems and how they have fared in the past.  Have government run economies done better than free market?  Just check out the most prosperous countries and you tell me.  Capitalism will always outstrip socialism and that is what you will find.  Believe me, I have checked.  So in the end, only the people can stand up against their government.  If we never do, eventually we will have a tyranny on our hands.  Remember, the only thing Hitler did to gain the power he did was suspend the constitution.  He didn't tell the people he would get rid of it, but that he would suspend it in light of recent events.  The constitution is what our country MUST live by or we are no longer a republic.  We must force it upon our elected officials that they must follow the contract. 

"A great number of laws had been passed, violating, without any apparent necessity, the rule requiring that all bills of a public nature shall be previously printed for the consideration of the people; although this is one of the precautions chiefly relied on by the constitution against improper acts of legislature. The constitutional trial by jury had been violated, and powers assumed which had not been delegated by the constitution. Executive powers had been usurped. The salaries of the judges, which the constitution expressly requires to be fixed, had been occasionally varied; and cases belonging to the judiciary department frequently drawn within legislative cognizance and determination."

Even at that time they were breaching their state constitution.  I could think of a way of doing something of the sort for our federal government today.  Gather all the political analysis on the major networks.  Go through any major programs, say anything spending over 1 billion or something, and if someone can say it is unconstitutional and it is seconded, then its gone.  Boy would that clear things up.  In all seriousness, how could we possibly find a group of unbiased people to be a judge on something of this nature.  The supreme court has a job and that is it, yet they are asleep at the wheel.  I don't have an answer for how something like this could be done, but it would be nice if we could find a way and get it going.

Since that was another short one...I will go on an impromptu rant again.

Ill go with the housing bubble.  Check out this 6 minute video on housing prices for the past 100+ years in the US.



Can anyone see how this could be a problem?  A government created problem?  I watch O'Reilly and he is still bent on not regulating the banks enough being the cause of this problem.  BAD regulation caused this problem!  Here is the problem as I see it.  The housing market was stable without any problems.  The banks are then forced to loan to lenders who wouldn't normally be approved.  Banks then realize that they can make a substantial amount of money by taking these risks and they know the government will back them if anything happens.  They continue on through the economic booms, but when any sort of stumbling block hits, they fall like dominoes.  By this time the banks have risked too much and cannot recover.  Another example of how government has no business getting involved in the private sector.

Short summary...Banks forced, banks exploited, walls come crumbling down.  Bad regulation started it and greed ended it.

When will people learn that anything the government touches, turns to ashes?  Welfare, retirement, soon to be healthcare, banks, take a look at our sue happy people and you tell me that isn't bad for America(from government enabling laws for trial lawyers), affirmative action, education, government housing, I suspect energy will be next to skyrocket in price due to the government, ethanol, California(huge liberal state going down), and my gosh the housing!...etc etc.  Everything government goes after always ends up hurting the people.  They wanted to make housing affordable for the poor, so they enact a bill, which ends up making housing affordable to nobody.  Congrats.  How come we are just like the beaten wife returning home?  Time to leave and take the kids! hehe

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

The Particular Structure of the New Government and the
Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts
From the New York Packet. Friday, February 1, 1788.
MADISON

Federalist Paper #47

"On the slightest view of the British Constitution, we must perceive that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments are by no means totally separate and distinct from each other."

So as I read on through that paragraph I couldn't help but notice how much they dwelled upon things that have worked in the past.  They only shaped ours like the British because they knew that for the most part, it would work.  Today the liberals want to shape our government like that of Europe yet again, only this time it is a socialist government they are straining for.  The socialist governments of Europe have been fairly short lived and have already shown their weaknesses.  How many countries over there are in worse economic conditions than the US?  Just think if our government had another 1 trillion of overhead...oh wait, now we do.  Socialism only leads to bankruptcy. 

The rest of the paper just divulges into different states and how they blend the powers more completely than the proposed Constitution, so I couldn't find much to rant about.  So I will just write something short from my news watching today.

Rove was on Hannity and he went through the numbers of the new budget plans from the Obama administration.  He used their numbers for his calculations and he even said that those numbers were extremely optimistic.  Given that, he laid out the deificit in the upcoming years and it seems that even if Obama cuts his deficit in half(which he won't), he will still have added 4.7 Billion to our debt.  According to Dick Morris, the top wage earners could see a 20% increase in their taxes after all is said and done, to pay for this.  In the end we will have, more permanent government programs that are inefficient and worthless, a higher debt and higher taxes.  Can anyone possibly come up with a worse scenario?  I don't see an end in sight for bailing out the auto industry for example.  They are still going to be strangled by the unions.  Our education system will not get any better as the teachers union will not have disbanded and allowed competition reign supreme through our schools.  Our healthcare system will have went Canadian and where will all those Canadians crossing the border go for their healthcare?  Our wait times for treatment will rise into the months and our costs will rise with them.  Meanwhile taxes on businesses will be higher and they won't be able to thrive, leaving our private sector out in the cold.  Its almost like Obama is reading straight from the communist manifesto.  This class warfare can only go on so long until all those making money, take a hike over the oceans and never return.  Around that time the rest of the world will see that our businesses are not taking off, the government budget is continuing to run up a debt and there is no end in sight.  They will cease investing in the United States and the dollar will lose its value.  Sure that will help our debt (that won't matter by that time), but the rest of our economy will crumble as prices skyrocket, without you making any more in your job. 

The banking system was put into a bad place and we could have just let them fall.  Other banks that were smarter would have bought the loans for pennies on the dollar and the survival of the fittest would take over and the crisis would have been hard, but short lived.  Instead we decided to allow idiocy to carry the day and we bailed them out.  By bailing any industry out it only cripples any possible recovery.  The auto industry for example would have been able to restructure and get the unions off their backs.  The workers would have to settle for competitive wages instead of outlandish marks.  They would be able to come back strong and keep their prices low.  Now they cannot do that and are stuck right where they were before.  They will never be able to prosper without declaring bankruptcy and dispatching of the unions.  Its back to square one with 50 billion behind us.  To continue on the banks, what we did was take their problems and put them on the country.  Now the government/taxpayer is on the hook.  With just the banks, if they failed, it would recover as I mentioned above.  With everyone on the hook, if this falls, it could be the end of America as we know it.  We rely on the rest of the world believing we can pay back our loans, but if this doesn't pan out, they will know we cannot and as I said above, the dollar value falls.

So all in all, Obama and Bush(with his bailouts) have put us in a pretty precarious position.  Socialism won't work and since we are so close to bankruptcy already the short term gains may never be seen and on the other foot if it doesn't work at all anyways, we are doomed.  Thank you spendaholics in DC.

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

Ok, so I have set up an RSS feeder that I will upkeep.  Im hoping this will help those who want to keep up with my posts, do so. 

Add it to your list! 

http://feeds.rapidfeeds.com/16842/


FYI, Im going to keep this close to the top so anyone new can see it.  So for those of you who keep returning, you can ignore this from now on. 

If anyone has any questions on RSS feeders, let me know as well.

The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared
From the New York Packet. Tuesday, January 29, 1788.
MADISON

Federalist Paper #46

"but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other."

This would probably be the closest reasoning that would answer my question from the last paper, so apparently, the question I asked was close to one asked in its day.  However, one may shoot back that regardless of whether they are enemies or merely coordinated entities, they do have powers that overlap and are adverse to one another.  One does not need to be an enemy of another to take advantage of them.  The Federal government, as seen by liberals, is constrained by the constitution.  Obama is on record on some issue that escapes me at the moment, about how the constitution limits what he wants to do(I thought it had to do with some sort of redistribution of wealth).  With that, he will go as far as the PEOPLE let him and forget the constitution.  If our presidents followed the constitution we would have many policies that would not have been enacted.  Obama knows that the people are not in tune to what the constitution actually reads and he is acting fast before anyone notices.  To get back to the original point.  If any person, or group of people, know there is a way to gather more power, they will do it.  By the Federal government pushing the states powers aside, they gain more for themselves.  After going through all these papers, it is clear what human nature sees as the fate of this scenario.  I am sure the founders saw that as well and knew the people would be the last stand.  They also knew that there wasn't, and isn't, a better way of fulfilling the requirements of government.  They knew that it wasn't perfect though the actual constitution may be, they knew that human nature would venture beyond it and the people would be the only ones to enforce the constitution indefinitely.  Time after time they come back to the people having the power by electing those in power.  If one decides against the will, they are voted out.  Today too many politicians have done things that a regular citizen would be imprisoned for.  The people are not being the backbone they need to be and therein lies the lack of accountability for our government.  If the people are not keeping an eye out, then nobody is.

"These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other."

And the very next sentence outlines his belief.  I guess I was correct lol.  Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile eh?

"that the federal council was at no time the idol of popular favor"

As I read about how the people felt then, I get a feeling that we have already passed the point of no return.  I do not feel as if the people actually want a capitalist form of economy.  So many have been tricked into thinking that the USSR way of doing things is better.  Too many do not see the problems Europe is having.  Too many cannot see that universal healthcare will not improve the care we get.  Too many only voted based on TV commercials.  Too many rely on the federal government for their living.  In all of that, it is going to take more than a political figure to bring the herd back around and towards home base.  It is going to take a pack of wolves.

"because it is only within a certain sphere that the federal power can, in the nature of things, be advantageously administered."

Micromanagment.  To sum up why our federal government is so wasteful...micromanagement of the economy.  How is it that so many people can take advantage of our welfare, or disability systems?  A large entity such as our federal government cannot oversee such a large group of people.  Private businesses specialize and make it their priority to get things done right as cheaply as possible.  If you work for the government and you realize that you have $5,000 left over, you know that you must spend it or you won't get it next year.  So you go ahead and spend it.  That is $5,000 in wasted cash.  If you work for a private business, in the same situation, you would let your supervisor know that you have the extra cash, knowing full well that next year if you need it, you can talk to them about getting it.  By giving that money to your supervisor, you are not shorted next year, as with government, but rewarded and sometimes you even get a bonus for it.  It encourages efficiency, whereas government encourages the opposite.

"whilst it will rarely happen, that the members of the State governments will carry into the public councils a bias in favor of the general government."

Unless the state government are turning to the teat of the federal government as well.  How many governors are clamoring to get the money from the federal government?  Not only are the citizens dependent, the states are too!  What a twisted turn of events...

"The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union"

If Obama gets his wish on his socialist agenda, it may come to this....be prepared.

"But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm."

Little by little is the receipe for success in this arena.  Put a frog in boiling water and he will jump out.  Put him in warm water and heat it, he will burn to death.  If these policies of Obama's were brought on 50 years ago, he would be laughed off stage.  If the Federal government tried enacting these things 50 years ago, there would be some major uprisings.  Little by little they have conditioned us to socialism and they are striking now while the iron is hot.  General alarms will not sound.  Opposition must come straight from the people.  Our state governments are no longer a voice to oppose the federal government.  The people are the only stand here.

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands...Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

Tell me that with today's laws that 1/6 of the population could do that.  Do you think 50 million Americans could rise up with arms?  That number is shrinking due to new guns laws daily.  Unconstitutional

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

The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
For the Independent Journal.
MADISON

Federalist Paper #45

"It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object."

Here is where the rubber hits the road.  The liberals believe that all these stimulus plans will spend us out of this recession.  I got news for them, it didn't work 70 years ago and it won't work now.  There MAY be some ever so short term gains, but I doubt they will last long enough to even see a different president.  Socialism only leads to bankruptcy and with our country so close to it already, it won't take long. 

"Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union."

With Obama implementing these changes, I see no end in sight for this recession.  When it becomes clear to the brainwashed that Obama and his socialist policies will not get us out of this recession, they will start thinking about whether our government really is good for us.  Once there is a flicker of discontent in the liberal number, I could see some major problems occurring.  Many of the inner city voters vote democrat so they are taken care of.  When Obama cannot do that, riots could ensue and the military would be called in to quell the riots.  At that time if the conservatives chose to act as one, with say the NRA, you could see a revolution.  Not a civil war type either, but closer to the french revolution.  Bloody.  Ill keep up hope that it doesn't happen, but be prepared for the worst is something I live by.

"The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States."

Now I know there are still way more working for the states, but consider how many are working for each of our congressmen.  I wouldn't doubt that each of them has hundreds of people working underneath them, each with a particular task.  Are they needed?  No.  Why then?  More waste....

Most of this paper had to do with the States being able to hold their own against the federal government.  In theory he makes many valid points.  However I have an argument against him.  When you have two powers that are at odds with each other, will one not conquer the other?  Even if they have countering powers, will one not find a way to defeat the other?  In that sense there is no such government that can exist by using a confederate method.  Either the States will eventually overpower the Federal government and the system will fall apart, or the Federal government will overpower the States and a tyranny will rise.  There is no such thing as perfectly equal and if one side has even the slightest power over the other, it may take time, but it will win out and remove the other.  I believe we are seeing that today.  The federal government has the advantage over the States with the final say on all laws and they are now moving beyond the normal compliance of the constitution.  There is nothing to stop them from doing what they like as the laws they make are supreme to the land.  The Supreme Court is the only court that can reel them in, but with party systems, the court will always favor one side and when it favors the socialist side, then there is nothing to stop them.  The States have been dominated over the decades with little usurpations of power and now they have no authority to fight back.  It turns out that the federal government is on par to conquer the state governments in our situation.  The founders counted on the citizens to fight back by removing those from office that are not abiding by the constitution.  They figured since the States were much closer to them than the Federal government, they would be more apt to choose the States over the Federal.  The citizens are the last line of defense, but over half of them are willingly being rounded up and penned by the farmer.  Less than half of the citizens will be the true line of defense it turns out.  Whether it be Obama that will implement a radical change or a later president, it will eventually happen one day.  Two powers can not be at odds with each other without one dominating the other. 

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

Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States
From the New York Packet. Friday, January 25, 1788.
MADISON

Federalist Paper #44

This paper covers:
5.  Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts.
6.  Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.

"The right of coining money, which is here taken from the States, was left in their hands by the Confederation, as a concurrent right with that of Congress"

Can you imagine if the states were able to create their own money?  The Fed wouldn't have to print all the money out and they could have a 2 trillion dollar stimulus rather than the diminutive 800 billion, don't ya think?  No longer would California be in debt!  All states would have balanced budgets against the newly printed money incoming.  In fact, they could probably do away with taxes altogether as they would just print off their revenues................With our current office holders around the country, I don't doubt what I said would happen if the states were allowed to print their own money.  The lack of fiscal responsibility would make this scenario seem like a dream come true to our liberal friends and many would take advantage of it.  Thank God the constitution does not allow it.

"power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof....Without the SUBSTANCE of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter."

I guess that is an extreme of the government having no power and the Constitution therefore being a dead letter.  We are on the other end of the spectrum right now with the government passing laws that are not found under the powers listed in the Constitution.  I guess that would make it a dead letter right?  In the eyes of our government, it is a dead letter.  Only in the eyes of the conservatives is the Constitution still a document that should be the binding contract our government follows.  Too many people look at Obama and see prewar Hitler.  Remember, he did great things before the war and brought Germany out of the great depression before anyone else could get out.  In all fairness he did it by building for war, but he did it nonetheless.  Liberals are looking for Obama to do much of the same thing and that is why we heard quotes such as: "I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or putting gas in my car" during the election.  Reality is quickly setting in as they lower the standards for their chosen one.  There have been two recent accounts that could be linked to this situation.  FDR came into a dire situation, but not only did he not succeed, he made it worse.  Reagan came into a horrible economy, on the brink of a depression and he did the exact opposite and brought us out.  Clearly a conservative approach should be the road to economic expansion.  Obama has come into a bad situation, but he was elected on the premise that he would be able to turn this around.  He sure sounded confident before the elections didn't he?  Where is that gleaming confidence now?  Why back down?  No matter.  He will be held accountable by the conservative media. 

"or of violating the Constitution by exercising powers indispensably necessary and proper, but, at the same time, not EXPRESSLY granted."

This is an interesting statement.  During the course of these papers, we have seen them go over the powers that the government will have with the Constitution.  I am going to leave this sentence for now until I read all the way through and see if they connect any dots.  So far this sentence stands alone.  As far as our current situation on this front.  Most all of what the government is doing is not necessary and will probably just quicken and deepen our downfall.  This stimulus is not necessary and only puts us in more debt.  In another year we will be back where we started and loaning money to these industries again.  Not good business if you ask me. 

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

The Same Subject Continued(The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered)
For the Independent Journal.
MADISON

Federalist Paper #43

I will summarize the powers to see if we come up with anything unexpected.

1.  Power to create copyrights
2.  Purchase of property for governmental purposes
3.  Ability to punish Treason according to the given definition of the word
4.  Admit new States into the Union
5.  Ability to makes rules and regulations respecting territory or property belonging to the US
6.  Guarantee a Republic government and protection from invasion as well as domestic violence
7.  All debts from before are carried over
8.  Provide Amendments
9.  9 states to ratify the constitution

Did anyone find healthcare?  Welfare?  social security?  Laws on climate change?  I cannot for the life of me see how any of the governmental powers would even fit under any of these titles.  Perhaps PUBLIUS will continue on and find places for such things?  I doubt it, but I will make those remarks after all 85 papers.

"and the greater right to insist that the forms of government under which the compact was entered into should be SUBSTANTIALLY maintained"

I would have thought the same.  Instead we have democrats trying to repeal the amendment that limits the presidential terms so Obama can become a lifelong monarch.  Little do they know that he will be voted out for incompetency soon anyways, but they still try.  If they had their way, congress would be nothing more than the senate during the Roman empire(non-republic times).  Elected to represent, but without powers for the most part.  That way they would have full power to do anything right now. 

"May it not happen, in fine, that the minority of CITIZENS may become a majority of PERSONS, by the accession of alien residents"

Ah, but this is why democrats are so bent on amnesty.  The new voters would put them in permanent power.  Though to be honest, if they had permanent power, the country wouldn't last another decade. 

"what better umpires could be desired by two violent factions, flying to arms, and tearing a State to pieces, than the representatives of confederate States, not heated by the local flame?"

If I may ask a question in turn?  What if the two factions at hand are not merely local factions, but national factions by which an impartial judge could not be found?  That is where we stand today.  Because of how everything is now on a national level, it is impossible to find impartial judges to any disagreement.  Even the supreme court cannot be called such.  Any foreign power is out of the question.  So where would we go?  I believe because this question can even be asked is a reason why some of the ideological problems emerging are even in existence.  Many problems are no longer local and since we do hear of so many national things happening we make up our minds based on titles and bumper stickers.  Some actually dig and find the truth of the issue, but not very many.  The two will then clash on the issues at hand because one is ignorant and the other is educated.  The media is brainwashing the populace with socialist propaganda and it works on the ignorant bunch, which is where this clash begins.  No person in their right mind would claim that socialism outstrips capitalism.  History has example after example of capitalism proving superior. 

"PERHAPS, also, an answer may be found without searching beyond the principles of the compact itself...It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void."

Would this not enable the States to leave the Union upon finding the Federal government in breach of the compact?  I would certainly think so and when/if things get bad enough, I believe we will see a state exercise this power.

And we are now over halfway done!  Hooray!  Time for the next 42 ;)

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

The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered
From the New York Packet. Tuesday, January 22, 1788.
MADISON

Federalist Paper #42

Just a reminder...

1. "Security against foreign danger;
2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations;
3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States;
4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility;
5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts;
6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers."

"including a power to prohibit, after the year 1808, the importation of slaves, and to lay an intermediate duty of ten dollars per head, as a discouragement to such importations.

Now that is interesting.  To broaden the scope a bit, he mentions laying a duty on something to discourage the sale of it.  I notice that California just voted in a tax hike during a recession.  Is there any better way to fast track our country into a depression than raising taxes?  FDR did that and it didn't work.  Not only did it not work, but it utterly destroyed our country and kept us in the great depression for over a decade.  Anyways, notice how many different products have their tax increased on a yearly basis.  Gas is always on the table for tax increases, yet when prices rise and people aren't driving as much because of the cost, what does congress do?  Raise the gas tax!  Its like being stuck in retard mode with these liberals.  They don't realize that our country relies heavily on oil and there is no technology that can fix it in the short term.  Instead of trying to kill our economy, why not let things run their course?  When hydrogen is cheaper, it will take over the market in a heartbeat by itself!  Another humorous thing to add in here is how ethanol prices seem to rise and fall with gas prices.  Why is that?  Ethanol is a negative energy fuel, meaning that it costs more energy to create it, than it gives out.  Sugar ethanol is different, but corn ethanol does this.  With that, there is no way they could fuel the production of it with ethanol or they would slowly run out and have nothing, while producing nothing for us.  All of their machinery runs on gas.  Ethanol is such a load of BS its insane people have swallowed it at all.  People are easily manipulated yet again.

"But the admission of consuls into the United States, where no previous treaty has stipulated it, seems to have been nowhere provided for."

I am just bringing up this sentence to prove how detailed Madison is being here.  Some liberals may just claim semantics and whatnot when we claim things are not found in the constitution.  Here is where Madison would be proven to be on our side of this argument.  The government has all these authorities, but because of the wording, the above sentence proves true and Madison holds it high.  This shows that every sentence in the constitution was chosen for a reason.  The constitution is not a writing that would give a power or miss one accidentally.  For example, welfare was not included probably because the founders saw what a drag it would be on the society.  Had we incorporated welfare into our country at that time, I highly doubt we would be a world power at this moment.  There would have been a high number of people jumping on the backs of the motivated and slowing the growth of our country.  The right to bear arms was chosen for the reason of enabling the people to defend themselves from a tyrannical government, even if invasion was mentioned, this was the main reason.  The 10th amendment was put there so that the federal government would not have all authority over the states which would keep this confederacy from dropping into exactly what we doing now.  Each and every sentence was chosen and we were supposed to follow it.  It worked for many years and kept our country on the road to greatness, yet now we strayed from it and find ourselves in a heap of trouble.  The obvious solution would be to return to the document that got us here, not drift away.

"But the most minute provisions become important when they tend to obviate the necessity or the pretext for gradual and unobserved usurpations of power." 

Gradual and unobserved would be the best way to describe this usurpation of power.  Glenn Beck had an expert on the 2nd amendment on his show the other day and the guy went on a rant about how difficult it is to own a gun in Illinois.  I guess you have to take out a 1 million dollar insurance policy.  Most insurance companies are not even agreeing to the policy, at any price.  So basically it takes out the ability to own a gun.  Now there are probably stipulations on that which I do not know and which it may not cover all guns for example, but on at least some guns, that is the law.  I would think that would be against the will of the constitution and should be ruled as such by the supreme court.  Is it not their job to interpret the constitution with the intent upon which it was written? 

"To those who do not view the question through the medium of passion or of interest, the desire of the commercial States to collect, in any form, an indirect revenue from their uncommercial neighbors, must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade."

Each and every year the weight upon which the American people increases as the Federal government increases its spending.  Little taxes here and there add up and each year they keep adding more.  Small taxes will be the end of us.  If the economy does not turn around soon, I believe a large black market will rise up and cut into the federal revenues.  Had the burden upon us remained relatively small, I do not believe people would resort to such tactics, but I think, given a contracting economy, they will to stay afloat.  The IRS may be a very busy department in the years to come.

"power to coin money"

With how our government is in such a large debt, can anyone else see banks starting to issue their own money again?  I mean, the US dollar, with Obama printing off such large amounts, may start a rapid decline in value.  Once the rest of the world sees we won't be able to pay our debts, it may well be worthless.  What then?...

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