The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the
Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with Representation
From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 19, 1788.
HAMILTON OR MADISON

Federalist Paper #57

" that it will be taken from that class of citizens which will have least sympathy with the mass of the people"

I already went over this before the subject about the House of Reps even came up.  Too many lawyers running around up there.  Not enough problem solvers.

"obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society"

Wisdom?  Is insulting our best ally wisdom?  Virtue?  You call all this double talk hypocrisy virtue?  Bush at least acted Presidential, no matter what things you hated about him.  He did not lower himself to the bickering of the media.  He was cultured enough to know that sending back a gift is an insult.  Obama has no clue what he is doing.  What a travesty of a President.  We should also make sure he doesn't pull a Clinton and try to take the gifts given to the GOVERNMENT while he was in office.

"The most effectual one, is such a limitation of the term of appointments as will maintain a proper responsibility to the people."

Today we vote in people based on name recognition and because of this, our reps can pull off nearly anything while in office and the voters will not get rid of them.  Notice how long some of the most incompetent representatives stay in office.  Clearly there is something wrong here.

"No qualification of wealth"

See, here is another problem.  For any of these guys to run for an office, they must spend lots of money and it turns out that the wealthy have a great head start and with an already ignorant populace, that ground is nearly impossible to make up.  I am wondering how he came to the conclusion that this would not happen to be honest.  It is inevitable that the wealthy would eventually make their way to the top of this representative scheme.  Not only does money buy many things, but connections do as well.  In any case, this has happened in our society.

"would have more to hope from a preservation of the favor, than from innovations in the government subversive of the authority of the people."

Why is Obama trying to shove through all these bills without the public being able to properly criticize it?  He knows they are subversive of the authority of the people.  It seems to me that something like national healthcare, is an obvious failure.  Common sense just takes a look at all our government does and anyone with a head on straight can see they will not succeed in this venture.  I cannot see how Obama could see it differently than that.  To me he must know that it will be a failure, yet he wants the government to have more power over the people than they did before.  Is there any other reason?  If they take on national healthcare and it fails, which it will, we will be in a much worse situation for it and many more millions will be without.  Expand too much and everything falls, which leaves all without the benefits.

"that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society."

Well, well, well.  I see that the DC gun ban would go against this measure.  Congressmen can still carry guns if they choose, while us lowlife citizens cannot.  I am going to keep an eye out for that in the Constitution as well.  This is a classless society and to keep it one, all laws must pertain to everybody!  His following paragraph outlines his disgust for governments that do as our congress has.  Wow, would he be pissed today! hehe

"Is it supported by REASON?"

How many arguments did the liberals come up with about Bush that were not supported by REASON?  How many arguments did they make about Rush or Coulter or Malkin or Hannity etc etc.  How often do they even have arguments supported by reason?  I would take a gander that more likely than not, if they have a problem, it is not a reasonable one.  Lies are the majority of the crap coming from the left.  You see it here daily on TH with the liberal posters, stopping by to claim a lie, and running off afterwards.  The problem is people are easily manipulated and so they hear the same lie enough and they believe it.  This all leads back to the ignorance of the populace because an educated population would not allow this to continue.

Each and every counter argument that could be brought would go back to the people being ignorant of the people they raised to power.  A republic cannot survive with an ignorant population as they will eventually elect their downfall.  Had our founders known how incredibly uninformed we would be today, they may have chosen a different form of government, though they would have probably put up safeguards against education instead of doing that.  What a pickle we have gotten ourselves into by voting blindly.  Are we past the point of no return?

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

Just thought I would put this up.  I was searching around today trying to find the ratings for Glenn Beck since I know his popularity has skyrocketed.  For a little fun I found this.

February Ratings: FNC Beats CNN and MSNBC Combined in Total Viewers

Fox News was the ratings leader during prime time and total day during February 2009 — its 86th month on top. FNC averaged more Total Viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined in prime time and total day.

FNC had nine out of the top 10 programs in cable news last month in Total Viewers. The O'Reilly Factor was #1 for the 99th consecutive month, and was up 33% in Total Viewers compared to February 2008. The other top programs included Hannity (up 38%), Glenn Beck (the 5pmET hour was up 100%), The FOX Report with Shepard Smith (up 30%) and On the Record with Greta Van Susteren (up 24%).

On the Record also reclaimed the lead in the 25-54 demographic, up 4% year to year. At 7pmET, FOX Report was up 28% in the demo, The O'Reilly Factor was up 44% and "Hannity" up 34%.

FNC's third newly launched show, "Special Report with Bret Baier," was up 38% in Total Viewers and the demo compared to last year. Baier's new program, Beck's and Sean Hannity's solo hour at 9pmET beat CNN and MSNBC combined in Total Viewers during their respective time periods.

In total day, FNC is up 29%, MSNBC 17% and CNN 2% in Total Viewers, and FNC is up 24%, MSNBC 7% and CNN is down 14% in the demo.

In prime time, FNC is up 28%, MSNBC 23% and CNN is down 30% in Total Viewers, while FNC is up 21%, MSNBC 3% and CNN is down 44% in the demo.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/february_ratings_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_in_total_viewers_109560.asp

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

The Same Subject Continued(The Total Number of the House of Representatives)
From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 19, 1788.
HAMILTON OR MADISON

Federalist Paper #56

"An ignorance of a variety of minute and particular objects, which do not lie within the compass of legislation, is consistent with every attribute necessary to a due performance of the legislative trust."

Our representatives will never be able to know as much as the body of the people.  Our government will never be able to keep track of all, while doing it efficiently.  This is the reason the private sector always outperforms the public.  That is one of the reasons our economy was so much more prosperous than the USSR.  When a private company has a few extra dollars they do not waste it on new computers that are not needed, or some others wasteful thing, just so they get the funding next year.  The government has that happen everywhere and it only creates inefficiency with money.  Just take a look at our stimulus bills if you are not sold on their wasteful spending.  When a private business has extra cash they only invest where they truly need it.  If they do not need it, they find a way to increase their profits with that money instead.  Everything is always done as efficiently as the managers know how.  To do otherwise would put the company out of business and a competitor would take over their spot.  The problem is our government believes they cannot go out of business.  It is true that they are under a non-competitive market, but they can surely go bankrupt. 

"and it may be expected that whenever internal taxes may be necessary, and particularly in cases requiring uniformity throughout the States, the more simple objects will be preferred."

I can see where our 16,000+ pages of our current tax codes would be simple right?  The more simple objects will be preferred!!!!  Sometimes I get the feeling that congress tries to word things in such a way that the average person would not be able to decipher what is being said.  That way they can claim it says something entirely different than what it actually means.  Simple simple simple.  I tell ya.

"The representatives of each State will not only bring with them a considerable knowledge of its laws, and a local knowledge of their respective districts, but will probably in all cases have been members, and may even at the very time be members, of the State legislature, where all the local information and interests of the State are assembled, and from whence they may easily be conveyed by a very few hands into the legislature of the United States."

I am going to go over the Constitution after these federalist papers and I will keep an eye out for this.  Can a person be a member of a state legislature at the same time as a Federal office.  That seems unlikely, but the way he worded this, it seems, at least, at that time you could. 

"can add any thing either to the security of the people against the government"

I found it rather fascinating that the first thing he mentioned would be the security of the people against the government, when this paper is not about that subject at all.  It just shows the amount of distaste the leaders of our country had for any kind of government, but knew that it was a necessary evil.  Today it is the exact opposite, where our "leaders" believe government is the end all, be all.  When anyone finally realizes the fundamental differences between our current leaders and our founders, it becomes clear why our current leaders cannot work with the Constitution.  The Constitution is meant to constrain them in every way possible, except for the few things necessary for a national government to run.  If we were to remove anything truly unconstitutional, over half our budget would probably be removed and we would have a surplus right now.  Everyone in government today believes the opposite and with those views, how can any of them stay within the bounds of a Constitution they believe is flawed?  Obama has said before that he believes the Constitution to restrictive on some of his agenda.  That was while he was a state senator I believe.  Im not going to waste my time finding the video, but I can tell you it was a video I saw of him saying that.

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

The Total Number of the House of Representatives
From the New York Packet. Friday, February 15, 1788.
HAMILTON OR MADISON

Federalist Paper #55

"thirdly, that they will be taken from that class of citizens which will sympathize least with the feelings of the mass of the people, and be most likely to aim at a permanent elevation of the few on the depression of the many"

Ok, so many will say that our congress is not looking to elevate the few and oppress the rest of us.  Perhaps they should take a look at all communist societies.  Sure anyone can claim we are not headed there, but just take a look at all the nationalization talk.  Even the European socialism was not nationalizing anything until this global economic crisis.  Communism is the government owning the businesses and forcing their hand.  Communism has always claimed to be for the little guy, for labor unions for example, yet somehow every time communism is implemented a majority of its citizens are near poverty.  I looked this up months ago and at the height of the USSR power in the mid 80's, 60% of their population was within 2 times their poverty line which was at 7,000 Rubles(I think on that 7,000 number).  If my memory serves right, our poverty line is at $13,000, meaning 60% of our population would make below $26,000.  Do you believe that to be even close to the stats?  According to the 2005 US census bureau, 50% make under $44,389 and the 60% mark is at about $58,000.  How is it that capitalism not only increases the lifestyle of the poor, but they also give them a better chance of rising out it and yet people still think capitalism is all about the rich?  Our current congress has began corporate welfare, the exact thing that liberals are always against in all their "anti-rich" rhetoric.  I am 100% against all these bailouts of the wealthy that took a greedy route.  Had we allowed some of these mortgage giants to fail, other banks would buy the loans for pennies on the dollar and the debt would be gone.  The fall would have been sharp and swift, but the recovery would be all the better for it.  Instead we are propping up these banks, insurance companies, auto businesses, but it will do nothing.  GM will need money until the day they file for bankruptcy because the unions have them strangled.  The banking industry doesn't just have water over their heads, they are at the bottom of the lake.  Back to permanent elevation...it is not an elevation of the rich over the poor, but of the government over the people.  When a government is large enough to give it to you, they are large enough to take it all away.  And all this isn't even mentioning the reoccurring theme of bankruptcy following around socialism and communism. 

"I am equally unable to conceive that there are at this time, or can be in any short time, in the United States, any sixty-five or a hundred men capable of recommending themselves to the choice of the people at large, who would either desire or dare, within the short space of two years, to betray the solemn trust committed to them"

Ask yourself this question.  If we had just had a revolution and we needed to kick start our economy, do you think congress would be enacting these crazy spending sprees?  Do you think they would be filled with pork?  Do you think Obama would be worrying about enacting nationalized healthcare at that time?  The reason for the probable changes would be the fear of the people.  Just after our revolution from Britain, our government officials knew the people were keeping a close eye on them.  They knew how thin the ice was they were walking upon.  If they strayed and tried breaking into the freedoms of the people, they would be overthrown immediately.  Today our congressmen have no fear of the people.  Constant manipulation is first concern of our government.  Name the largest budget with "Era of Responsibility" and the people will not know any different.  Whether actual action needs to be taken or not, the fear of the people needs to return to our government, otherwise we will be at their mercy and soon all our freedoms will be taken.

"they had the fate of their country more in their hands than it is to be hoped will ever be the case with our future representatives"

Our government was meant to give us the freest country in all the world.  The fate of the country should not lie with the government, but with the people.  It seems that liberals have forgotten that it is the people that who should be making their own decisions.  The government should not be going beyond the basic needs of the nation.  The freedom of the people is what makes our country so great.  Our flag is a symbol of freedom around the world.  People fight tooth and nail just to get in the door to have a bite at our economic freedoms, our religious freedoms, our voting freedoms, our freedoms!  Why change that and give the ultimate power over to the government?  Has any nation ever prospered while the government held power over the people?  What makes anyone think that will suddenly change now?  Human nature will never change and that is a fundamental reason capitalism and republics work best.  It uses our personal weaknesses and turns them into economic strengths.  It pits power against power so that one may not rule all.  It regularily holds elections so as to remove any who have been corrupt or acted against the country's best interest.  It allows for the motivated to make the most of their possibilities.  It makes every working person more productive than any other type of society.  Looking back on the cold war, if you remove nuclear weapons, did they ever really have a chance?  Our only risk was that they may drop a bomb on us.  They would not have had a chance at invading us and could not possibly keep up with us economically.  Just another example of capitalism overwhelming communism.

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

The Apportionment of Members Among the States
From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 12, 1788.
HAMILTON OR MADISON

Federalist Paper #54

"that representation relates more immediately to persons"

I have always wondered why we do not simply elect the president based off population.  I know they wanted an indirect election by the people, or something of the sort, but why not just have the people straight out vote?  When voting for a person in a district race, you do not tally the number of blocks each person won, you tally the vote count.  Same goes for state races.  They do not count the districts that each Governor has won, but the entire voting count winner.  Why then when moving towards president do they suddenly change the rules?  Im sure someone could tell me, and if you know, please do, for I am have wondered this before.

"If the law allows an opulent citizen but a single vote in the choice of his representative, the respect and consequence which he derives from his fortunate situation very frequently guide the votes of others to the objects of his choice"

Respect for the person of fortune.  Boy has our attitude changed towards the people that make our country great.  We used to revere the people that stood up and made a success of themselves.  Now we tear down the person that was smart enough to start their own business and turn it into a multi-billion dollar business.  Why?  Liberals have created class jealousy.  Instead of the middle class looking up and thinking that could be them if they worked harder, they want to bring that wealthy guy down to their level.  They want each person to suffer as they suffer.  Is that not what communism is?  From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.  Here in America we have many many wants.  How much of our money goes to entertainment, fashion or expensive dining or others?  To each according to his needs...think about that.  The poor class in America still lives in the top 2% in the world.  Do they live according to their needs?  Do the poverty stricken in America only live to survive?  Food, clothing, shelter?  I think not!  Even the poorest of our country lives much beyond base necessities.  To rehash, to each according to his needs.  This means that we would bring everyone down to the bottom level until we are all equal.  Everyone lives an equal lifestyle under communism.  This is not a zero sum game we are playing here.  Without the "rich" to create jobs, the government will have taken full control of our lives and your freedoms are gone.  Voting?  bye bye.  Extra spending cash?  bye bye.  New sports car?  Bye bye.  You name it, if its a want instead of a need...bye bye.  Conservatives must focus on destroying the class warfare if they are ever to wipe out liberals.  Class envy is what other countries go through, when their are classes based on birth.  We here have the American dream in which any person can end up in any class they choose.  Instead of degrading the poor by insulting them with money for votes, lets empower them to reach higher and move up the ladder on the fruits of their own labor.  It starts with a good education...so I guess it goes full circle on where conservatives must go first to begin their ascent to power, but we must break it somewhere. 

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

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.