The Utility of the Union In Respect to Revenue
From the New York Packet. Tuesday, November 27, 1787.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #12

Looking into Revenues...this should be interesting.

"It has been found in various countries that, in proportion as commerce has flourished, land has risen in value. And how could it have happened otherwise?"

Well, the CRA bill did just that.  Here is a case where the government created a bad regulation and caused a crisis.  If left alone, the market will do just as Hamilton says here.  When a government regulation comes in and skyrockets land prices, what did anyone think would happen?  Sooner or later people will not be able to afford their housing and bam, you have a burst of the housing bubble.  I did not have the ability to see this happen as I was only 8 when Clinton signed that bill, but I am surprised that our leaders did not see this coming for the past decade.  Many people had invested in land instead of stocks, bonds, etc and when the bubble went, so did lots of peoples money.  No liquidating that land anymore!  It is amazing how common sense alludes democrats on an issue such as this. 

"The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates."

Hmmm...I wonder if that is why congress continues to print money for us.  These "stimulus" packages are really just printed money going straight to the consumers instead of replacing money with the banks.  With more money, the government can tax us more.  I also notice the topic of how fast the money circulates comes up.  Wouldn't that mean that during a recession that we should probably be taxed less?  It would seem that Hamilton knew more about economics over 200 years ago than many in our government today.  This is why in my last post I came up with an idea to have the Federal Reserve have a limited amount of power in controlling the tax rates.

"of putting it into the power of the government to increase the rate without prejudice to trade. "

This is an interesting statement.  It seems that he wants government to be able to tax, but not for the reason of deterring people from trading a specific product.  I heard on Fox News that some want a sugar tax to "solve" our obesity problem.  Wouldn't that directly go against what he just said though?  Pretty soon they are going to tax bullets at such a high rate as to deter people from buying bullets.  Then you will not be able to heat your home to 72 in the winter (sort of like California trying to control peoples housing temps).  One day you won't be able to go to a fast food restaurant since they aren't healthy enough.  This is pandora's box here.  Its controlling the public "for their own good".  Who else in history has done that?

The rest was on a single union helping them collect tariffs for the most part.  Most of it didn't extrapolate to todays circumstances, but definitely a good read.

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

I was thinking and a thought came to me...just wanted to know what some others thought of it.

Congress would vote on a set of rates the certain tax rates could fall under.  For example they could vote that the top income tax rate would fall inside 34%-39%.  The actual rate would be under the control of the Federal Reserve.  This way they could see how the economy is doing and easily help the economy with a slight change in the tax rate, much like the interest rate.  This could be a way to immediately help an ailing economy.  Congress takes too long to get anything done and they never know the correct moves anyways.  This would put the immediate power of tax rates in the hands of people who watch the economy as their job, not parade around DC making promises.

Thoughts?

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

The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #11

Hamilton first points out how Europe is hoping we do not band together as one, since it would hinder their powers.  He points to how we could gain the upper hand on, for example, Britain.  We could use our power to turn the tables for our advantage instead of allowing them to set the prices. 

The Union would allow us to build a great Navy as well and he points to how having a navy able to sufficient to decide battles for one or another, we could achieve commercial gain.  Basically we could gain allies by having a navy to not only help defend us, but them.  This would greatly benefit us in the markets.

He then turns the tables and gives negative examples of states being split into numerous confederacies.  How such a small country could be thrown around by Europe, etc etc. 

Basically most of what he says in this paper is common sense.  He is merely proving the point beyond doubt that a union would be better for a navy and commerce. 

As I read these papers I cannot help but think why can't someone do this for current problems concerning the United States.  The War in Iraq? Abortion?  Traditional family values?  Welfare?  Affirmative Action?  etc etc.  I know there are many many smart conservatives that have the ability to write as these men write the Federalist Papers.  To write in a way that is neither condescending or angry.  To write in a way that simply lays out as many facts and examples as possible to prove a simple point.  Think how few points have been covered thus far and how much writing has been done.  When reading these you cannot help but think that they are right.  In hindsight, they were, but think if our country was falling apart and we had some on one side saying we should split into two nations while others wanted us together.  Think Civil War.  Think if every one of the southerners read these papers...would they have been as quick to concede from the union? 

Maybe one day I will be skilled enough with the pen to create such a set of papers, however as it stands, there are conservatives that possess the skills now, so why not?

Thank you for reading.

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

The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
From the New York Packet. Friday, November 23, 1787.
MADISON

Federalist Paper #10

"There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects."

Im wondering how we can use one of those two against the Democrats.  Causes?  Give in to loss of traditional values?  Socialism?  Madison points to either destroying them, or giving in.  Neither is really an option at the moment.  Madison says both are not good options anyways, so that probably won't be an option in the future either.  Controlling its effects must be the way to go here.  Unfortunately Republicans had their heads so far up their a**es that they went left and lost power.  Without a majority anywhere, we must hope this doesn't last long. 

Looking again at the democrats strategy, I believe I see a destruction of causes.  Communism does this with controlling all media outlets and removes all freedom of speech.  Notice how liberals are all for free speech for themselves, but as soon as someone exercises their free speech to speak against them, they go bananas.  Notice the extreme bias the media has towards Obama right now.  The guy is hailed as a savior and he hasn't even put one bill into effect.  Liberals really strive to shout down everyone against their beliefs and try forcing their own down everyones throats they can.  It ends with a destruction of liberty to create factions.  It creates communism and a one party system where there is no choices. 

"But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property."

He labels many other similar types of factions based on money.  What these come down to is Class Warfare.  Adding fuel to the fire is what democrats do on a daily basis.  They are uniters?  Or are they really the dividers?  The answer is obvious to anyone reading with an unbiased mind. 

Madison states how factions must be the judges between the classes.  Democrats would rather pit the rich against the poor instead of finding a balance and realizing that there will always be a rich and poor.  In capitalism the poor live well comparably, while in communism the middle class lives poorly.  Capitalism is about making the entire pie larger, while socialism is about giving everyone the same size piece.  Ill take the larger pie thank you very much.

He basically ends in saying the causes of factions cannot be removed.  He went through a very long proof to prove that human nature is to form factions. 

"When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens."

This is where the two party system fails us.  We will always have a faction in a majority position of power.  If we had say 4 evenly split parties, then we would need at least all of 2 or in all probability, 3 of the 4 parties to agree.  That stabilizes things much more.  In our 2 party system, a single person can sway their own party into voting a certain way.  We are not so much a republic anymore, but nearly monarchy with some legislation.  Instead of one person though, the power lies with a handful.  Better than one owning all the power, but I would rather multiple parties converge forcing the power to be split much more.

"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Now I know that even with a single party in total control, we are still a republic, but aren't we getting close to democracy?  A republic is meant to protect the minority.  In a two party system, it gets tougher to protect the minority.  Especially with many House of Reps. becoming national figures.  I know the speaker of the house is a major position, but the point of that house in the government is to connect with the people closer than a president would be able to.  I feel that instead of doing that many reps are pushing for their party agenda which is not helping the country. 

And Madison actually mentions how with smaller republics there is a higher probability of a single faction attaining a majority and executing their oppression.  I guess I was on the right track with the two party system. hehe

"The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States."

Here is where modern communication has changed the state of how things can be done.  Single factions can spread their agenda easily around the country instead of being found in a single region.  This has caused some problems in my opinion.  It decreases the range of opinions that would be heard at the table as people are brainwashed with others opinions at an early age.  This is step one in getting a universal belief system. 

"for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project,"

Hold the phone!!!  Is that redistribution of wealth!?  I think so!!!!  Madison is labeling an equal division of property(or money) as improper and wicked.  Maybe someone should inform the democrats of this.  They may want to remove Federalist Paper #10 from all libraries. 

Thanks for reading

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

On to #9

Federalist Paper #9

Hamilton talks of the Union defending us against domestic factions and insurrection.  Both of which are becoming alarming problems as we progress down our current road.  Right now the domestic factions of political parties are doing their part to ruin our country.  Both have agenda's that are not in the best interest of our country and neither cares about that either.  The spending habits of both parties has crippled our economy by removing any backup plans we may have been able to take.  We now have no wiggle room and gavel is coming down upon us.  Illegal Immigration is another issue on the table where many are, so called, "taking the high road" for political correctness and not national benefit.  Clearly it is not good for our economy to take in millions of people who have no money, yet democrats are all for amnesty in the name of fairness.  Fairness doctrine will silence the truth by putting radio's out of business since they are forced to put liberals on the air.  Etc etc...I could go on, but you get the point.  Political parties are more interested in their own ascension than the greatness of the country.  Insurrection may be coming upon us with the way banks are collapsing around us.  The civil war was an example of the union holding us together as a single nation and quelling the violence.  The road we are traveling down can only lead to bankruptcy by our government.  That leads to anarchy.  We will see how our union holds up to that.  Im optimistic that we can pull through these tough times, but I am realistic too. 

He continues on about how previous republics had flaws that have been reconciled.  The legislative branch for example has evolved and adds needed stability and responsibility to the government.  He lists some others, you can read it.

Hamilton then uses several quotes from Montesquieu to prove his point.  The confederate republic is really what we have.  States are all republics themselves and under a single republic.  This is where I believe the Federal government has overstepped its boundaries.  The Constitution was set up in a way to give the Federal government certain rights with the rest going to the states, as specified.  However, the Federal government has taken many rights that belong to the states.  I recently heard of a republican trying to introduce a bill that forces a law to prove it is constitutional before being voted upon.  That is exactly what we need!  There are very few changes I would make to the Constitution, but that is one of them.  Instead of proving in the negative, prove in the positive and we would have many fewer ridiculous laws. 

"The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power."

Those powers are being usurped by the federal government!  Where is the 10th amendment!

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

Federalist Paper #8

Continuing on the Consequences of Hostilities Between the States by Hamilton.

His first full paragraph is on what Europe goes through with their constant wars.   A very real example that would disgust any wishing for freedom.  He then examines how it would be different and much worse here in the states.  Where in Europe each is well established and able to repel many attacks, here we are new and larger states would "plunder and (devastate)" the smaller ones easily.  In the end, people will give away their freedoms in favor of security, which would probably lead to monarchies.  Not a pretty picture in my eyes.

The path he leads us down from republic to monarchy is a fantastic way to prove his point.  It is clear that he doesn't lead us astray with his hypothesis, as it happened in Europe as he explained.  I personally believe that if the leader of a monarch has good principles and pursues avenues for the correct reasons, it can be better than a republic.  Decisions can be made quickly and corruptness will be tougher given that only a single person is making the decision in this case.  If he has a pure heart, he may not stray from decisions benefiting the nation as a whole.  The problem is human nature.  Humans are power hungry and greedy.  It doesn't take long for the son of a ruler to kill his father to take the throne and proceed to immolate his people for his personal benefit.  Not a pretty picture there either.

Hamilton himself asks a question one might ask if they were still against his preposition.  Greece still had standing armies, why are we so different to them?  He states how our living arrangements are much different now. 
"The industrious habits of the people of the present day, absorbed in the pursuits of gain, and devoted to the improvements of agriculture and commerce, are incompatible with the condition of a nation of soldiers, which was the true condition of the people of those republics."
Another difference would be the state of the standing armies.  One, if separate confederacies, must be ready for battle at any moment, while another, if a union, wouldn't be.  Laws for relaxed liberties in favor of security would be less likely imposed if we were a union.

"The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an over-match for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil, and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights."

Can anyone see a reference to why we have the second amendment?  Now how would the community defend itself from the standing army, if they had no arms to do so!?  They simply couldn't! 

The rest is reproving the other side of the coin regarding standing armies.  Fascinating stuff. 

Thanks for reading.

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

Ok, so I must be getting on at the worst possible times.  TH was down again while I was trying to do this, so I ended up only having time for one and that was tough, being how late it is right now.  Here goes anyways.


Federalist Paper #7

Hamilton gives many reasons the states, if separate, could go to war with each other.  Land being the first reason, he describes the unsettled land in the west could pose a problem when each state makes a claim on it. 

Commerce is a second reason.  When one state is doing better than another, the first may feel a need to bring the other one down to size.  Now, notice that the one doing better doesn't intentionally being itself down to size with the other.  Liberals today are constantly trying to cut our country down to size.  Never in history have I seen a country who would rather see other countries flourish than their own. 

Public debt is named as another reason.  This could happen if all the states came together for a single payment of some sort.  Who pays what and why?  That sort of thing could cause hostilities.

Laws being violated by another state is another possibility of war.  Anytime one state takes advantage of another, there will be at least an escalation of arms.  Not good for anyone, and bound to happen by everyone.

Foreign alliances and inter-state alliances could cause a war.  Say one is allied to France and another England.  We are then tied to Europe, who was war plagued for many of these years, in the form of alliances, which could bring us to war against each other.

That is a shortened summary of what he talked about.  Of course his reasoning and vocabulary was much more indepth. lol

Again, not much concerning decisions we are currently making.  Good stuff to read and know though, considering one day we may come across some similar decisions to this.

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

"Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States"
This one by Hamilton

Federalist Paper #6

"A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other."

Now now, if they just talked with each other it would not matter right?  I mean, diplomacy solves all problems.  *snicker*
In that same paragraph he talks of human nature.  Human nature plays an important part in many of the founding writings of our country.  If men were not greedy for power, would we need the 2nd amendment?  Probably not, however that is not the case.  As you read these keep in mind the role human nature plays and how it benefits a republic set up the way ours is.

Again the use of examples is brought up alongside other logical arguments just after that.

"Commercial republics, like ours, will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other. They will be governed by mutual interest, and will cultivate a spirit of mutual amity and concord."

Now I know he does not mean harmony all the time or anything, but I believe our current republic has disproved this theory.  We have papers like the NYT giving out classified information to our enemies.  We have liberal papers telling flat out lies for simple political gain.  We have our media creating hate for Israel and America across the globe.  We must be the first nation in which many of its inhabitants care more about other countries, than their own.  Or more about terrorist rights than our military's rights(Murtha).  Sickening. 

I love this paragraph he wrote:

"Is it not (we may ask these projectors in politics) the true interest of all nations to cultivate the same benevolent and philosophic spirit? If this be their true interest, have they in fact pursued it? Has it not, on the contrary, invariably been found that momentary passions, and immediate interest, have a more active and imperious control over human conduct than general or remote considerations of policy, utility or justice? Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by MEN as well as the latter? Are there not aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions, that affect nations as well as kings? Are not popular assemblies frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities? Is it not well known that their determinations are often governed by a few individuals in whom they place confidence, and are, of course, liable to be tinctured by the passions and views of those individuals? Has commerce hitherto done anything more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory? Have there not been as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the prevailing system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory or dominion? Has not the spirit of commerce, in many instances, administered new incentives to the appetite, both for the one and for the other? Let experience, the least fallible guide of human opinions, be appealed to for an answer to these inquiries."

He asks many questions that his doubters would ask.  Once again surrounding the issue to leave no wiggle room for the opponents.

Even though that is not a point pushing towards having a republic he uses it as an example where no matter what government is being used, wars do ensue anyways.  Through that logic, states must form a single union to avoid such contests.  Spectacular way to prove his point I think. 

I didn't comment as much on this one as it was more or less similar to the last ones.  Have fun reading.

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

Wouldn't you believe it, he's still on the same subject.

Federalist Paper #5

Just when you thought he came up with all possible reasons to form a union, he makes a couple more cases for it.  Using past events is often used in these Federalist papers.  They will talk about past Republics and Democracies to show why things went wrong in the end.  Im sure if they were alive now, they could give us some very definitive answers as to why we are in such economic turmoil.  By using Queen Anne, Jay is using a successful example as to why the union must be formed.  An example by itself will not do the trick, but paired with the other arguments he has made, he makes a compelling case. 

"yet what human contrivance can secure the continuance of such equality?"

This is a question that could be asked of many things today.  Why are some people successful and some failures?  Why do people end up on the street?  Which leads us to redistribution of wealth.  All it does is provide a hungry person with a fish.  Tomorrow they will be back asking for another fish, which means that the fisherman actually catching fish, must then catch an extra fish each day for that person.  Now think perhaps that half the people are sitting around asking for fish.  Wouldn't that make for quite a heavy extra load on the people actually fishing?  It is much more important to teach a man to fish instead.  (I am taking this from the bible mind you, paraphrased of course hehe)  Instead of our education system teaching our children to fish, we are teaching them how to ask another for fish.  Or we are teaching them that the other person shouldn't have more fish than them.  We are teaching them that no matter who does what work, all should end up with equal fish.  At some point the scales will tip and the few fisherman left won't be able to catch enough fish for the rest of the town, who are sitting and waiting for their fair share.  At that time, don't expect the fisherman to return, expect him to find another shoreline to return to, so he could enjoy his fish.  *cough Hong Kong cough*

When reading I get the sense of him persuading, but I do not feel pushed into believing.  I think that is also a key factor when debating.  While encircling the argument, just spread the facts far and wide. Without being pushy, you force the other to think instead of act.  By them thinking you have already planted a seed and when the truth comes to pass, they will remember that.  

Thank you for reading.

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

Jay is continuing on the previous subject here as well.

Federalist Paper #4

This paper has to do entirely with forming a single union.  I couldn't find any major things sticking out at me that would fit todays situation.  I would like to point out how he makes his arguments.  He surrounds each situation with all possible outcomes before stepping into it.  He asks a question in many cases.  He then runs through the circumstances that may come to pass.  I found that when arguing with a liberal on a given subject, if you build your argument much like Jay is here, they will have a hard time even coming up with a good lie as you will have already put down many possibilities they thought of. 

On a similar note:

Earlier this year I had that chance to meet with a state congressmen by the name of Pat Garofalo.  I and 4 others had a laid back dinner at Augsburg college before he was to have a friendly debate with a democrat who was running in a different precinct.  They both had nobody running against them so it was more fun than anything.  Anyways, we were talking politics and he mentioned that he had once gotten a chance to speak with Justice Roberts.  He stated how Roberts formed his arguments and how it left the opposition speechless unless they had a very good case against his argument.  He first started down a path in the wrong direction stating why it would be correct, but then would suddenly switch course and move off into his actual stance on the subject.  Along his second path he would outline why his first path was incorrect.  By doing this the opposition would have to make a very compelling argument to make any ground.  If his stance was incorrect a person would certainly be able to argue the point, however if his stance was correct, there wouldn't be much left to discuss. 

From time to time on TH (when I posted more on columnist pages) I would try this on liberals and it does work.  I would surround a situation and end up forcing them to make a move before using obvious fact to discredit their feeble attempt.  They usually ran after the first couple posts and the ones that didn't ended up on my liberal quotes blog since their responses were so outlandish after that, it was worth keeping it for a laugh. haha.

Thanks for reading and any comments you may have are welcome.

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

Jay is continuing on "Dangers of Foreign Force and Influence"



Federalist Paper #3

The opening statement is somewhat ironic actually.

"IT IS not a new observation that the people of any country (if, like the Americans, intelligent and wellinformed) seldom adopt and steadily persevere for many years in an erroneous opinion respecting their interests."

I guess the American people were more intelligent and informed at that time than we are now?  Even with all the technology for communication purposes, we are less informed of our governments doings.  We have persevered, for decades, on many erroneous decisions.  Take affirmative action for example.  The facts are out there that blacks had a higher graduation rate, a higher success of marriage, were paid better on average and had higher employment, among other things, before affirmative action was put into place.  I will not research all that now, but the facts are out there and I have seen them.

Another example would be the CRA(Community Reinvestment Act).  Not only did it go on for decades, but we strengthened it along the way.  The minute Clinton changed the bill, housing inflation went through the roof.  Wouldn't that be a sign?  But no...we don't do anything.  Even after the fact I haven't heard of any talks of repealing the act. 

Are Americans really that ignorant?

"Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first."

Are there any liberals out there reading this?  SAFETY was listed as first by his conclusions.  What one thing has Bush done a spectacular job at doing?  SAFETY!!!

"The JUST causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence."

So...where does Iraq fall in that?  Violation of treaties?  I would say UN sanctions would be much like a treaty, though admittedly Iraq would fall under the Monroe Doctrine more squarely.  Im not going to go into Iraq's involvement with terrorists as I believe they were involved, but that wouldn't fall under those two causes squarely anyways.

Im going to stray a moment here and bring in the Israel conflict.  Much of the world is condemning Israel for their offensive, but they were ATTACKED.  Not only is that squarely under a JUST cause for war, but would we sit back as Canada launched missles into New York?  Bring the situation home and thinking logically.  Common sense says that Israel has a right to defend itself, does it not?  There is no need for understanding any foreign affairs or politics.  This is a plain common sense problem and somehow the left doesn't understand. 

"Because when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it;"

This is one major problem we have today.  The smartest people do NOT want to get involved in serving for our government.  Instead we are ending up with a bunch of power hungry bimbos.  That spells disaster when you are talking decades of people who have no business being in those positions, making important decisions for our government.  The smartest people are becoming engineers, or scientists, and there is nothing wrong with that, but we have hardly any of them moving into government.  That is a problem.


The rest is more to the direct implications of not forming a union.  However beneficial it is to read it, I don't see the need to discuss those points here. 

I will mention that I saw Bush's last conference today and I was pretty happy with his demeanor.  I recommend that those reading this to watch it.  I found it at Bush Conference.  Try typing it into google though.  Try "Bush's last press conference" or final press conference and see what sites come up.  Conservatives are losing the online battle.  I got mainly liberal sites for a couple pages of google. 

I didn't like some of the policies he mentioned like immigration, but his overall attitude was "Im not taking s**t today", more or less.  I liked it and have been waiting for this for a long time.

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

Federalist Paper #2

He states how we must form a single union instead of dividing ourselves into many "distinct confederacies".  This point is made many times throughout the federalist papers and I won't speak to it every time for that would get a bit repetitive on my part since it doesn't exactly coincide with what we are going through today.  I can only say that our country is becoming divided politically.  The hatred that each side has for the other is reaching highs and we must not let our country split into two separate nations.  This problem is not like that of the civil war though and we are not separated by regions, but by beliefs which scatter us anywhere and everywhere across the country.  If we were to have a civil war today it wouldn't be very possible to split into two nations.  Instead a civil war would probably prove near fatal and we would probably be doing something similar to 1776 after the conservatives cleanse our country of socialists.  I say it like that because nearly everyone who owns guns are conservative or at least republican.  If there was a war, it is pretty evident that conservatives would come out on top.

Moving on from that subject.

"a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs"

Now, I wonder what religion he speaks of?  Or principles and customs?  Liberals speak as if we are not a nation founded upon the Christian religion.  They would have you believe that our founding fathers were not Christians.  They would have you believe that our Anglo-Saxon customs and principles of old are not why we are the most powerful nation on the planet.  A "tossed salad" is what they are looking for, not a melting pot.  Instead of coming to the United States and conforming to OUR customs(melting pot), we are forced to conform to THEIR customs(tossed salad).  Have you ever heard of such a thing in all of history?

"That body recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet it is fresh in our memories how soon the press began to teem with pamphlets and weekly papers against those very measures."
"Many, indeed, were deceived and deluded, but the great majority of the people reasoned and decided judiciously; and happy they are in reflecting that they did so."

I can not help but notice that even at that point in time, the media was already causing trouble.  Today I believe the media is to blame for most of our problems.  I was on a cruise over new years and all I could get was international CNN.  I can see why the rest of the world hates us.  CNN covers about every negative angle on America it possibly can.  It takes every opportunity to create hatred for Israel.  The western world is in for a wakeup call when these Muslim radicals inflict a major act of terrorism upon our soil.  I believe it would be folly for them to do it now while we are still a powerful nation, since if they did set off, say a nuclear device, our rage would come down upon all of them until they are no more.  They are waiting it out until we are weaker.  Lets not get caught with our pants down. 

This federalist paper had more to do with creating a single union than anything else.  It did include the people trusting the decisions of their selected congress to stay a single union.  Reading these papers it is evident that Jay, Hamilton and Madison had a much better understanding of human nature and economics than those in power today.  I will get to that when they get to it though.

Thanks for reading and any comments are welcome.

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

And so begins my series on the Federalist Papers.  I am going to attempt to do a paper a day, though admittedly that probably won't happen as college will start up in a couple weeks.  Ill try to go the first month though.  I plan on putting a link to the current paper to begin each post for you to read beforehand.  I will then write a short or long essay describing how it relates to today.  If that particular paper doesn't relate very much, it will just be good to read each paper anyways.  If it does relate my analysis will be slightly longer.  The main point of this is for us to decipher what the founding fathers had in mind for our country.  Did they want a government to coddle people at the expense of others?  Somehow I seem to doubt it, but lets find out from their own words, shall we?

One thing before starting.  Please read the 2nd Amendment.  This amendment is constantly under attack from the left because of how it is written.  At this time I have only read through about half of the Federalist papers, but as I read through them I noticed that once you read these papers, the 2nd amendment is easy to decipher.  The way they parse their sentences is consistent from the Federalist papers to the Constitution. 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I will not give my analysis now upon this subject.  As you read these papers you will see what I mean.  If you want my reasoning, I have written a previous post on the second amendment.

Federalist Paper #1:  Federalist Paper 1

It begins with a forward looking set of statements.  Is mankind able to create a good government when given the opportunity?  Some will resist because of personal loss of power, while others will want to split the union for personal gain.  However he dismisses using the nature of their arguments as a reason for him being correct.  Basically he says I will prove my reasoning instead of disproving why they are pushing for their agendas. 

Take notice of: "nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties" 

George Washington warned us of creating political parties on his leave from office.  Hamilton states here that political parties have intolerant spirits.  Wouldn't that be a negative influence?  Notice how that has affected the democrats as well as the republicans.  Lieberman stands up for the Iraq war and he gets thrown out.  Doesn't that just send the message of individual thinking to all our congressmen in DC as well as local governments.  Political parties only narrow our choices of good leaders in this country and it really has been one cause as to the corruption in DC.  When voting this November I couldn't help but think, "are these the best we could do?".  McCain and Obama?  Seriously...

"dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government."

Notice what the democrats claim they are for at every turn?  Sounds so familiar doesn't it...

As he goes he states that he will give forth his reasoning for the new Constitution.  He will detail "advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers". 

Your thoughts are welcome.  Any analysis above my own is welcome as well.  I will add to this if an enlightened observation is made on a point that I missed. 

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

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

I think that quote must be a cornerstone on how we look to the future of America.  You all know why, so no need in explaining.  Do not stand idly by!  I'm going to be using this as my signature, just as a reminder. 

I guess congress has decided that the auto industry is not worth a bailout.  As do I, except I think the whole bailout business is wholly unneeded. 

Problems ailing the Auto Industry in America:
Unions
Gas
Government

Unions are killing the American automakers because of not just wages, but pensions and whatnot.  Here are a couple stats...a few years old, but this just lets you know that this problem has been ailing them for some time.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060308.IBGM08/TPStory/?query=

Now take note of how much they are cutting these costs of workers that aren't even working and on healthcare!

"reduce the Detroit-based company's year-end 2006 pension liability by about $1.6-billion."
"GM earlier won $1-billion in annual health care cuts from union employees,"

Reduce by 1 billion and 1.6 billion?  How much are they spending?!  And we wonder why Japanese cars are like half the price of ours with the same quality.  Unions have suffocated the auto industry and now they are paying for it.  When the auto industry goes under, there will be no benefits going out.  Kind of like socialized health care if you ask me.  You want all this coverage through government mandated, and then it costs so much the government goes under and no one gets benefits, or at the very least they ration(read some previous posts from me for that story, it is long).  The auto industry cannot ration, so they are forced to go under.  There goes benefits for millions, on top of jobs lost for current workers.  Thank you unions.  There was a place and time for unions, and I firmly believe that time has passed.

Gas:  Prices went up and people consolidated.  Many American automakers make lots of their money on trucks.  Foreign cars already had a hold on the car business.  With higher gas prices, there goes their truck sales. 

Government:  The government taxes the hell out of these businesses.  I couldn't find exact numbers unfortunately, but our businesses are taxed much more heavily than say Japan's auto industry.  With lower taxes they can afford to lower their prices and make just as much as the companies here.  With that they have lower prices for the same quality and that is how they are selling more. 

Add those 3 up and you have a perfect storm.  Billions lost...jobs disappearing.  What is going to happen?  In general they will have to file bankruptcy and lets see how this pension stuff works out for them.  The only way they can compete in the future is to rid themselves of the unions that are strangling them.  Heck, honestly, if I were them, I would be outsourcing with the work environment here.  In an effort of nationalism though, for them to stay and work, unions must be taken out.

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