We’ve all been shocked and saddened by the tragic events in the Gulf of Mexico. My heart breaks for coastal residents who are facing fears of the unknown impacts of the oil spill.
As an Alaskan, I can speak from the heart about the tragedy of an oil spill. For as long as I live, I will never forget the day the Exxon-Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef and millions of gallons of North Slope crude poured into the waters of our beautiful Prince William Sound. The spill was devastating to so many Alaskans who, like my own family, make their living on the water from our commercial fishing industry. "Heartbreaking" was the word my husband Todd, an Alaska Native and trained oil spill responder, used to describe the scene as we watched it unfold on land and water that we feel is sacred.
Alaskans understand the tragedy of an oil spill, and we’ve taken steps to do all we can to prevent another Exxon tragedy, but we are still pro-development. We still believe in responsible development, which includes drilling to extract energy sources, because we know that there is an inherent link between energy and security, energy and prosperity, and energy and freedom. Production of our own resources means security for America and opportunities for American workers. We need oil, and if we don’t drill for it here, we have to purchase it from countries that not only do not like America and can use energy purchases as a weapon against us, but also do not have the oversight that America has.
In the coming days, there will be hearings to discover the cause of the explosion and the subsequent leak. Actions will be taken to increase oversight to prevent future accidents. Government can and must play an appropriate role here. If a company was lax in its prevention practices, it must be held accountable. It is inexcusable for any oil company to not invest in preventative measures. They must be held accountable or the public will forever distrust the industry.
This was the position I took as an oil and gas regulator and as Governor of Alaska when my administration ramped up oversight of the oil industry and created a petroleum-systems-integrity office to monitor our oil and gas infrastructure for potential environmental risks. I took a lot of heat for the stand I took "against the oil industry" (which is how political adversaries labeled my actions). But we took tough action because there was proof of some improper maintenance of oil infrastructure which I believed was unacceptable. We instituted new oversight and held British Petroleum (BP) financially accountable for poor maintenance practices. We also filed a Friend-of-the-Court brief against Exxon’s interests for its decades-old responsibility to compensate Alaskans affected by the Valdez spill, and I took other actions "against" the industry which ultimately helped hold it accountable.
Our hearts go out to all Americans along the coast affected by this recent tragedy, especially those who lost family members in the rig explosion, and our prayers go up for a successful recovery. May spill responders be safe.
- Sarah Palin
Reality dictates that we will be using oil and natural gas as our main source of energy for the foreseeable future and it is in America's best interest to explore for our own God given natural resources. It's a matter of national security, and financial security.
Instead of all of the histrionics we are seeing from the radical left, and political opportunism from the Obama regime, Sarah Palin brings calm, experienced leadership to this situation. Something our nation is sorely lacking.
The list is out and Time Magazine has once again chosen the world’s 100 Most Influential People. Sarah was chosen as one of the worlds’s Most Influential Leaders, and showcased in their coverage as an Icon. Sarah is seen with Time’s assistant managing editor Radhika Jones, who compiled and edited the project for the magazine:
As Time is want to do, they chose someone of note to write Sarah’s introduction. In this case it was none other than Texan Ted Nugent:
If Sarah Palin played a loud, grinding instrument, she would be in my band. The independent patriotic spirit, attitude and soul of our forefathers are alive and well in Sarah. In the way she lives, what she says and how she dedicates herself to make America better in these interesting times, she represents the good, while exposing the bad and ugly.
She embraces the critical duty of we the people by participating in this glorious experiment in self-government. The tsunami of support proves that Sarah, 46, represents what many Americans know to be common and sensible. Her rugged individualism, self-reliance and a herculean work ethic resonate now more than ever in a country spinning away from these basics that made the U.S.A. the last best place.
We who are driven to be assets to our families, communities and our beloved country connect with the principles that Sarah Palin embodies. We know that bureaucrats and, even more, Fedzilla, are not the solution; they are the problem. I'd be proud to share a moose-barbecue campfire with the Palin family anytime, so long as I can shoot the moose.
Nugent is an author, activist and rock-'n'-roll legend
That would be a fun BBQ to attend!
Also chosen for Time’s honor was Glenn Beck, and as luck would have it, Sarah was asked to write Glenn’s introduction:
Who'd have thought a history buff with a quirky sense of humor and a chalkboard could make for such riveting television? Glenn's like the high school government teacher so many wish they'd had, charting and connecting ideas with chalk-dusted fingers — kicking it old school — instead of becoming just another talking-heads show host. Self-taught, he's become America's professor of common sense, sharing earnestly sought knowledge with an audience hungry for truth. Glenn, 46, tackles topics other news shows would regard as arcane. Consider his desire to teach Americans about the history of the progressive movement: he's doing to progressive what Ronald Reagan did to liberal — explaining that it's a damaged brand.
His love of the Founding Fathers inspires others to learn and respect our nation's history. Best of all, Glenn delights in driving the self-proclaimed powers-that-be crazy. (The whole country awaits the red phone ringing!) Even his critics (whom he annihilates in ratings) have to admire his amazing ability to galvanize everyday Americans to better themselves and peacefully engage their government. Though he sometimes dismisses himself as an aw-shucks guy or just a "rodeo clown," he's really an inspiring patriot who was once at the bottom but now makes a much needed difference from the very, very top.
Sarah was on Glenn Beck’s radio show today discussing their shared honor, as well as their affection for the Great State of Texas, and Sarah’s fondness for the neat little town of Giddings, where she and her family often stay when in the state.
Time also publishes a list of the 100 Least Influential People. Deliciously delicious is who makes the list, with the word loser beside his name.
In Federalist 4, John Jay continues to build the case for the United States vs 13 separate sovereign nations, or groups of nations. As a student of history, I am continually struck by the fact that the more things change, the more they stay the same. That human nature never changes.
At the time of these writings, America had already become a strong presence on the world stage. Trade with other nations was growing. Jay speaks to the concerns of trade that could lead to war with other nations. In those days trade disputes were generally settled by the sword rather than by diplomacy.
Jay understood that other nations would not only be jealous of America’s newfound status, but angered by her ability to undercut them in the marketplace. Of course, unlike our current president, and those in his party, Jay doesn’t seek to apologize for America’s greatness. Instead, Jay talks about the need for the several states to be united. Jay continues to speak toward a strong national defense, and how only a United States can truly provide this for the benefit of all.
Jay even goes further and discusses the difficulty there would be if the states remained apart, or formed several groups of states. He gets into allied command structuring, who would command the forces, should those several groups of states find the need to come together for the mutual defense of their people.
This reminds us that job one of the federal government is to protect the nation at all costs. It’s not wealth re-distribution, or providing health care, or "re-making society." Or any other dangerous activity the Obama regime is engaged in.
It’s not the job of the federal government to tell you what you can eat, what you can drink, where you can live, or how you must worship. It is however, the absolute job, in fact the main job of government, to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.
Here is where Barack Obama is a complete failure, and we see no better example of this than his inadequacies, and almost disinterest, in Iran’s march towards a nuclear weapon, as well as Russia and China’s meddling in the world. Obama’s inability to lead on this, or even recognize the danger, puts not only the United States in peril, but the entire world.
Just as Jay warned over 200 years ago, the other nations of the world are quite envious of America’s greatness. They continually look for ways to undermine that. It’s human nature. That the Obama regime doesn’t understand this is incredibly troubling.
The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence
For the Independent Journal.
Author: John Jay
To the People of the State of New York:
MY LAST paper assigned several reasons why the safety of the people would be best secured by union against the danger it may be exposed to by JUST causes of war given to other nations; and those reasons show that such causes would not only be more rarely given, but would also be more easily accommodated, by a national government than either by the State governments or the proposed little confederacies.
But the safety of the people of America against dangers from FOREIGN force depends not only on their forbearing to give JUST causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to INVITE hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are PRETENDED as well as just causes of war.
It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people. But, independent of these inducements to war, which are more prevalent in absolute monarchies, but which well deserve our attention, there are others which affect nations as often as kings; and some of them will on examination be found to grow out of our relative situation and circumstances.
With France and with Britain we are rivals in the fisheries, and can supply their markets cheaper than they can themselves, notwithstanding any efforts to prevent it by bounties on their own or duties on foreign fish.
With them and with most other European nations we are rivals in navigation and the carrying trade; and we shall deceive ourselves if we suppose that any of them will rejoice to see it flourish; for, as our carrying trade cannot increase without in some degree diminishing theirs, it is more their interest, and will be more their policy, to restrain than to promote it.
In the trade to China and India, we interfere with more than one nation, inasmuch as it enables us to partake in advantages which they had in a manner monopolized, and as we thereby supply ourselves with commodities which we used to purchase from them.
The extension of our own commerce in our own vessels cannot give pleasure to any nations who possess territories on or near this continent, because the cheapness and excellence of our productions, added to the circumstance of vicinity, and the enterprise and address of our merchants and navigators, will give us a greater share in the advantages which those territories afford, than consists with the wishes or policy of their respective sovereigns.
Spain thinks it convenient to shut the Mississippi against us on the one side, and Britain excludes us from the Saint Lawrence on the other; nor will either of them permit the other waters which are between them and us to become the means of mutual intercourse and traffic.
From these and such like considerations, which might, if consistent with prudence, be more amplified and detailed, it is easy to see that jealousies and uneasinesses may gradually slide into the minds and cabinets of other nations, and that we are not to expect that they should regard our advancement in union, in power and consequence by land and by sea, with an eye of indifference and composure.
The people of America are aware that inducements to war may arise out of these circumstances, as well as from others not so obvious at present, and that whenever such inducements may find fit time and opportunity for operation, pretenses to color and justify them will not be wanting. Wisely, therefore, do they consider union and a good national government as necessary to put and keep them in SUCH A SITUATION as, instead of INVITING war, will tend to repress and discourage it. That situation consists in the best possible state of defense, and necessarily depends on the government, the arms, and the resources of the country.
As the safety of the whole is the interest of the whole, and cannot be provided for without government, either one or more or many, let us inquire whether one good government is not, relative to the object in question, more competent than any other given number whatever.
One government can collect and avail itself of the talents and experience of the ablest men, in whatever part of the Union they may be found. It can move on uniform principles of policy. It can harmonize, assimilate, and protect the several parts and members, and extend the benefit of its foresight and precautions to each. In the formation of treaties, it will regard the interest of the whole, and the particular interests of the parts as connected with that of the whole. It can apply the resources and power of the whole to the defense of any particular part, and that more easily and expeditiously than State governments or separate confederacies can possibly do, for want of concert and unity of system. It can place the militia under one plan of discipline, and, by putting their officers in a proper line of subordination to the Chief Magistrate, will, as it were, consolidate them into one corps, and thereby render them more efficient than if divided into thirteen or into three or four distinct independent companies.
What would the militia of Britain be if the English militia obeyed the government of England, if the Scotch militia obeyed the government of Scotland, and if the Welsh militia obeyed the government of Wales? Suppose an invasion; would those three governments (if they agreed at all) be able, with all their respective forces, to operate against the enemy so effectually as the single government of Great Britain would?
We have heard much of the fleets of Britain, and the time may come, if we are wise, when the fleets of America may engage attention. But if one national government, had not so regulated the navigation of Britain as to make it a nursery for seamen--if one national government had not called forth all the national means and materials for forming fleets, their prowess and their thunder would never have been celebrated. Let England have its navigation and fleet--let Scotland have its navigation and fleet--let Wales have its navigation and fleet--let Ireland have its navigation and fleet--let those four of the constituent parts of the British empire be be under four independent governments, and it is easy to perceive how soon they would each dwindle into comparative insignificance.
Apply these facts to our own case. Leave America divided into thirteen or, if you please, into three or four independent governments--what armies could they raise and pay--what fleets could they ever hope to have? If one was attacked, would the others fly to its succor, and spend their blood and money in its defense? Would there be no danger of their being flattered into neutrality by its specious promises, or seduced by a too great fondness for peace to decline hazarding their tranquillity and present safety for the sake of neighbors, of whom perhaps they have been jealous, and whose importance they are content to see diminished? Although such conduct would not be wise, it would, nevertheless, be natural. The history of the states of Greece, and of other countries, abounds with such instances, and it is not improbable that what has so often happened would, under similar circumstances, happen again.
But admit that they might be willing to help the invaded State or confederacy. How, and when, and in what proportion shall aids of men and money be afforded? Who shall command the allied armies, and from which of them shall he receive his orders? Who shall settle the terms of peace, and in case of disputes what umpire shall decide between them and compel acquiescence? Various difficulties and inconveniences would be inseparable from such a situation; whereas one government, watching over the general and common interests, and combining and directing the powers and resources of the whole, would be free from all these embarrassments, and conduce far more to the safety of the people.
But whatever may be our situation, whether firmly united under one national government, or split into a number of confederacies, certain it is, that foreign nations will know and view it exactly as it is; and they will act toward us accordingly. If they see that our national government is efficient and well administered, our trade prudently regulated, our militia properly organized and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed, our credit re-established, our people free, contented, and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship than provoke our resentment. If, on the other hand, they find us either destitute of an effectual government (each State doing right or wrong, as to its rulers may seem convenient), or split into three or four independent and probably discordant republics or confederacies, one inclining to Britain, another to France, and a third to Spain, and perhaps played off against each other by the three, what a poor, pitiful figure will America make in their eyes! How liable would she become not only to their contempt but to their outrage, and how soon would dear-bought experience proclaim that when a people or family so divide, it never fails to be against themselves.
PUBLIUS.
On Monday we will pick things back up as we continue to read the Federalist Papers. In the meantime, stop by Constituting America and read more essays on the Constitution and the Federalist Papers.
Federalist 3 is a continuation of the theme John Jay started in Federalist 2. In today’s read, Jay continues to speak to a United States and their combined power, vs separate sovereign nations.
This time we are talking about national security. Jay points out that there are strength in numbers, and a strong United States would, in itself, would deter many actions and invasions. Remember, at the time America was surrounded by foreign territories.
Jay also points to the fact that a United States, with one set of treaties, would be able to conduct coherent foreign policy more effectively than an "every man for themselves" approach Strength through power was the correct recipe for success, according to Jay. This, of course, applies today as well.
The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence
For the Independent Journal.
Author: John Jay
To the People of the State of New York:
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. That consideration naturally tends to create great respect for the high opinion which the people of America have so long and uniformly entertained of the importance of their continuing firmly united under one federal government, vested with sufficient powers for all general and national purposes.
The more attentively I consider and investigate the reasons which appear to have given birth to this opinion, the more I become convinced that they are cogent and conclusive.
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. The SAFETY of the people doubtless has relation to a great variety of circumstances and considerations, and consequently affords great latitude to those who wish to define it precisely and comprehensively.
At present I mean only to consider it as it respects security for the preservation of peace and tranquillity, as well as against dangers from FOREIGN ARMS AND INFLUENCE, as from dangers of the LIKE KIND arising from domestic causes. As the former of these comes first in order, it is proper it should be the first discussed. Let us therefore proceed to examine whether the people are not right in their opinion that a cordial Union, under an efficient national government, affords them the best security that can be devised against HOSTILITIES from abroad.
The number of wars which have happened or will happen in the world will always be found to be in proportion to the number and weight of the causes, whether REAL or PRETENDED, which PROVOKE or INVITE them. If this remark be just, it becomes useful to inquire whether so many JUST causes of war are likely to be given by UNITED AMERICA as by DISUNITED America; for if it should turn out that United America will probably give the fewest, then it will follow that in this respect the Union tends most to preserve the people in a state of peace with other nations.
The JUST causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence. America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them, except Prussia, are maritime, and therefore able to annoy and injure us. She has also extensive commerce with Portugal, Spain, and Britain, and, with respect to the two latter, has, in addition, the circumstance of neighborhood to attend to.
It is of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and to me it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government than it could be either by thirteen separate States or by three or four distinct confederacies.
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; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government,--especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States. Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more SAFE with respect to us.
Because, under the national government, treaties and articles of treaties, as well as the laws of nations, will always be expounded in one sense and executed in the same manner,--whereas, adjudications on the same points and questions, in thirteen States, or in three or four confederacies, will not always accord or be consistent; and that, as well from the variety of independent courts and judges appointed by different and independent governments, as from the different local laws and interests which may affect and influence them. The wisdom of the convention, in committing such questions to the jurisdiction and judgment of courts appointed by and responsible only to one national government, cannot be too much commended.
Because the prospect of present loss or advantage may often tempt the governing party in one or two States to swerve from good faith and justice; but those temptations, not reaching the other States, and consequently having little or no influence on the national government, the temptation will be fruitless, and good faith and justice be preserved. The case of the treaty of peace with Britain adds great weight to this reasoning.
Because, even if the governing party in a State should be disposed to resist such temptations, yet as such temptations may, and commonly do, result from circumstances peculiar to the State, and may affect a great number of the inhabitants, the governing party may not always be able, if willing, to prevent the injustice meditated, or to punish the aggressors. But the national government, not being affected by those local circumstances, will neither be induced to commit the wrong themselves, nor want power or inclination to prevent or punish its commission by others.
So far, therefore, as either designed or accidental violations of treaties and the laws of nations afford JUST causes of war, they are less to be apprehended under one general government than under several lesser ones, and in that respect the former most favors the SAFETY of the people.
As to those just causes of war which proceed from direct and unlawful violence, it appears equally clear to me that one good national government affords vastly more security against dangers of that sort than can be derived from any other quarter.
Because such violences are more frequently caused by the passions and interests of a part than of the whole; of one or two States than of the Union. Not a single Indian war has yet been occasioned by aggressions of the present federal government, feeble as it is; but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by the improper conduct of individual States, who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses, have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants.
The neighborhood of Spanish and British territories, bordering on some States and not on others, naturally confines the causes of quarrel more immediately to the borderers. The bordering States, if any, will be those who, under the impulse of sudden irritation, and a quick sense of apparent interest or injury, will be most likely, by direct violence, to excite war with these nations; and nothing can so effectually obviate that danger as a national government, whose wisdom and prudence will not be diminished by the passions which actuate the parties immediately interested.
But not only fewer just causes of war will be given by the national government, but it will also be more in their power to accommodate and settle them amicably. They will be more temperate and cool, and in that respect, as well as in others, will be more in capacity to act advisedly than the offending State. The pride of states, as well as of men, naturally disposes them to justify all their actions, and opposes their acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses. The national government, in such cases, will not be affected by this pride, but will proceed with moderation and candor to consider and decide on the means most proper to extricate them from the difficulties which threaten them.
Besides, it is well known that acknowledgments, explanations, and compensations are often accepted as satisfactory from a strong united nation, which would be rejected as unsatisfactory if offered by a State or confederacy of little consideration or power.
In the year 1685, the state of Genoa having offended Louis XIV., endeavored to appease him. He demanded that they should send their Doge, or chief magistrate, accompanied by four of their senators, to FRANCE, to ask his pardon and receive his terms. They were obliged to submit to it for the sake of peace. Would he on any occasion either have demanded or have received the like humiliation from Spain, or Britain, or any other POWERFUL nation?
PUBLIUS.
Please take time to visit Constituting America and join in on the conversation, as well as read further essays on the Constitution and The Federalist.
The voluntary relinquishment of power for the greater good is normally praised as an example of true leadership—just review any biography of George Washington.
Let this latest dismissed complaint serves as a reminder for one of the real—and stated—reasons for her voluntary relinquishment of office, an office she campaigned for diligently, tirelessly and effectively. It stands as a marker that occasionally, every so often, there are public servants who can recognize the difference between self-interest and public interest. Sarah Palin is one such public servant.
~ Thomas Van Flein, personal attorney for Sarah Palin
When Sarah Palin was chosen as John McCain’s running mate the entire Marxist-democrat party went into panic mode. Granted, the general public was going "Sarah who?" but those of us who really follow this stuff knew exactly who Governor Sarah Palin was. In fact, a sizable number of people were openly lobbying for her selection before we even had a nominee for the top spot.
Sarah Palin has a long and storied career as a political powerhouse and a reformer. She was able to take down the "good old boy" network, the "Corrupt Bastards Club" as they called themselves, all Republican Establishment types. And she had a long record of taking down corruption in her other jobs.
Sarah had looked Big Oil, including the largest corporation in the world, Exxon, and told them how things were going to be. In short, Sarah is an effective leader, and an honest leader. The woman is fearless, politically.
Remember, two of Obama’s closest advisers, Pete Rouse, and the infamous Anita Dunn are both from Alaska. Both know all about Sarah. Dunn was one of the first ones sounding alarm bells.
Within days of the announcement that Sarah had joined the McCain ticket, Barack Obama personally reached out to the Alaska Troopers Union to discuss the bogus "Troopgate" nonsense that was brewing. Obama then set his Senate Chief-of-Staff, Pete Rouse, who is now a White House adviser, in motion.
Rouse contacted his former colleague Senator Kim Elton. Elton and Hollis French, along with a couple of other far left Marxist-democrats turned a small dispute over the firing of a insubordinate department head into a three ring circus, complete with a kangaroo court.
This went from a story about Walt Monegan, the head of the Dept of Public Safety, to a story about Palin’s deranged brother-in-law who was drunk on the job, got caught poaching (a serious deal in Alaska), tazered his step son, and threatened the lives of Sarah’s sister, her dad, as well as Sarah herself. Oh, and as far as I know, the trooper, Michael Wooten, is still a state trooper to this day.
The witch hunt became so absurd that sane members of the party wanted nothing to do with it, and a serious revolt was brewing in the legislature. Of course, Elton, French, Beth Kerttula, Steven Branchflower, etc., were all promising something so terrible, it would end up with Sarah’s impeachment.
Now bear in mind, Walt Monegan was an "at will" employee. An appointed position. In other words, the Governor could fire him for any reason, or no reason at all. You serveat the pleasure of the Governor. Period.
In the end, just a few days before the presidential election, the "Branchflower Report" was rushed in front of the world wide media. The promised "October surprise."
The kangaroo court, of course, claimed that Sarah had somehow overstepped her bounds by firing a guy that, by law, she could fire at any time, without cause. One should know, before Monegan was shown the door, even though he was insubordinate, continually trying to do end runs around Palin’s budget slashing measures designed to put Alaska back on solid footing, even with all of that, Sarah offered the guy the opportunity to take another position. He refused.
Within days of the bogus "Branchflower Report" an independent investigator for the Alaska State Personnel Board looked at the findings. Timothy Petamenos, the investigator, found that not only had Obama’s people wrongfully accused and "found" Sarah guilty, Branchflower actually hid evidence that proved Sarah was innocent of the alleged issue: Trying to force Monegan to fire Wooten, a guy who deserved to be in jail, not just fired.
Branchflower suppressed witness testimony, e-mails, and more. As if Branchflower and Co. weren’t big enough jokes, Petamenos also found they had cited the wrong statues to "convict" Sarah in the first place!
The so-called "reprimand" Sarah received was then overturned by the Alaska Personnel Board, clearing Sarah of any wrong doing.
Of course, the dirty deed was done. This had stirred up just enough dust, only days before the election, to hurt McCain/Palin and help Obama. By the way, for those that don’t know, this is was first election that Obama had ever won outright. He used dirty tricks to have his opponent "disqualified" when he ran for the Illinois Senate, and of course his minions caused all sort of problems for Senator Ryan, and his ex-wife, actress Jeri Ryan, forcing him to withdraw, giving Obama what amounted to a bye-run into the U.S. Senate. Typical Chicago thug politics.
As a payoff for a "job well done" just weeks after Obama was sworn in as President, he quietly appointed Kim Elton to a make work job at the U.S. Department of Interior. Chicago pay-for-play at it’s finest.
Of course, this insanity didn’t stop there. The Obama regime, and his thug supporters knew they had awakened a Mama Grizzly. They also knew that Sarah Palin was a huge hit with the American people. I mean think about it, when have you ever seen a group run a TV ad, during the Superbowl, to thank the vice presidential candidate from the losing ticket?
This scared the hell out of the Marxist-democrats. They know Sarah’s proclivity of going after corruption, and Obama is the absolute epitome of the corrupt politician. They also saw the crowds Sarah drew, and the strong favorable emotions America had toward her, despite the best lies their media partners had thrown out there..
Now one of the things Obama’s right hand man, Pete Rouse had done was help set up the "Wasilla Project" with a bunch of radical leftists in Alaska. A small but seriously vile group of losers. Several of them were hate filled bloggers Shannyn Moore and Jeanne Devon. These two were afforded access to the sewage dump known as the Huffington Post, As vile as that place is, it is mainstream for members of the Marxist-democrat party, and Obama’s media partners at ABC, CBS, NBC, and so on, link to the site all of the time.
These two bloggers, and a handful more, including the "Official DNC Blogger For Alaska" Linda Kellen Biegel, used their access to so-called "legitimate" media to spread multiple lies on almost a daily basis, including the incredibly vile and hateful lie that Sarah’s new baby, Trig, was not really hers. They continually attacked Sarah with this nonsense, and had all sorts of sick "fun" photoshopping the kid and saying the vilest of vile things. These were published in HuffPo, and widely distributed. Some of these nimrods turned "Trig Trutherism" into a cottage industry.
Well, That didn’t work either. Sarah was still standing strong. In fact, Sarah had already started going after Obama and his destructive, anti-American ways. It was quite clear Sarah didn’t like the course Obama put the country on, and wasn’t going to just sit back and watch it happen.
Early on Sarah established herself as the leading voice of reason, while the feckless men of the GOP were still admiring the crease of Obama’s pants. As we have seen over the last year or so, Sarah Palin is not someone who just sits back. She is every bit the "Sarahcuda" who helped her team win a championship, playing on a broken ankle.
These ethic complaints served all kinds of evil purposes. Obviously it tied up state employees, including Sarah and her staff, as they dealt with these. It was a distraction, at best. Of course here’s Sarah, who was not rich, only making $ 125,000 a year, having turned down a $25,000 raise thinking of the state budget, facing all kinds of personal legal bills. These ended up at over $500,000, which would have bankrupted the family.
By the way, and this played a HUGE part in Sarah’s decision to resign, these nasty little creatures cost the Alaska taxpayers around $2 million to investigate all of these bogus complaints. They should all be in jail, if you want my opinion.
These complaints, besides being pure old Alinsky/Obama harassment, also sought to paint Sarah as some sort of unethical person. To take the "reformer" tool out of her hand. Even better, it gave the hate bloggers a chance to shout, almost daily, that more was coming, "impeachment was eminent." They were even talking about "FBI indictments" which prompted the FBI to do something they just don’t do, and come out and tell the world that there was absolutely no FBI indictment, and further, the FBI had no ongoing investigations, and absolutely none planned! (More on this later)
This was somewhat effective. One still sees the poorly informed Obama koolaid drinkers promising indictments are coming.
Now in all fairness, not all of these complaints were filed by Obama’s people. A couple were filed by Andree McLeod someone who, as best as we can tell, is angry that Sarah didn’t hire her for some position. I think she still has one pending. She’s one of those "characters" that ever good story has, and well...that is that.
Anyway, with all of the craziness, all of the attempts by Obama’s hand picked thugs, Sarah Palin is not only still standing, but has proven herself to be a real force of nature, and the strongest leader in the country. It’s kind of poetic justice, to me. If Obama and his crew had just left Sarah alone after the election, and let her be Governor, she would be quietly running her state. But thanks to their zeal to do evil deeds, and forcing her to step down, for the good of Alaska, Sarah finds herself with a lot of time on her hands. She’s become quite well off, thanks to a runaway best selling book, and a brand new one on the way, as well as all of the speaking engagements across the nation where she can reach millions of people and spread her message of common sense conservatism.
In fact, one can say, thanks to these loons, Sarah Palin has become a household name and a shoe in for both the 2012 GOP nomination as well as the presidency.
I’ve said all of that to say this: Yet another one of the bogus "ethics complaints" the twenty-sixth one, has been thrown out. This from Sarah’s attorney, Thomas Van Flein via her Facebook page.
Swing and a miss
Yesterday we learned that another "ethics" complaint that was filed against Governor Palin was dismissed as baseless. (If you are counting, the Governor is 26-0-1 regarding such complaints or suits, with one still pending). Only this complaint was actually filed after she left office, and alleged that the mere existence of the Alaska Fund Trust (the legal defense fund set up for her to help defray the costs incurred during the Troopergate fiasco and related machinations that followed in its wake) was violative of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act as well as its solicitation or receipt of contributions. The raison d’Ltre of the legal defense fund was inexorably linked to Governor Palin’s nomination as the Republican candidate for Vice President and the post-nomination political tactics arising therefrom; thus making the nomination sine quo non for the fund. In a detailed opinion, the complaint was dismissed as lacking a factual or legal basis. Last June, upon learning that a complaint against the Governor’s Anchorage Office Director was dismissed as baseless, Governor Palin’s then Chief of Staff Mike Nizich said, "This is not about holding the governor or state employees accountable. This is pure harassment." That still rings true today.
When I discussed this with Governor Palin, she had an interesting take: "My reaction upon reading the opinion in this matter was not what I expected. Though I’m always pleased with the results of these investigations that prove the false allegations wrong, and I appreciate the detailed reasoning set forth in this recent opinion, I was primarily disappointed that the State of Alaska, the Attorney General’s office, and others, still have to spend time and resources addressing the abusive onslaught of frivolous complaints directed against me—even after I left office."
At times (indeed, as recently as Sunday in a magazine cover story) people allege that the "real" reason Governor Palin stepped down was to "make money" (citing primarily her best selling book). As this most current complaint again emphasizes, Governor Palin stepped down for the right reasons—she did not want to see her state government continue to get bogged down with inane "ethics" complaints that were transparently political, plainly partisan, and diverting state resources.
The voluntary relinquishment of power for the greater good is normally praised as an example of true leadership—just review any biography of George Washington—and it should be in this case as well. But for those who seek power for the sake of power, a selfless act is confusing, so a new narrative is created, such as the "profit" motive now being asserted with renewed vigor. Rest assured Sarah Palin had obtained approval to write her memoir while still in office without running into any conflict with the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Her financial future from her best selling book, though unknown then, would not have altered much whether she stayed in office or resigned, except the number of "ethics" complaints did dramatically decrease, so any legal fees associated with such complaints decreased concomitantly.
Let this latest dismissed complaint serves as a reminder for one of the real—and stated—reasons for her voluntary relinquishment of office, an office she campaigned for diligently, tirelessly and effectively. It stands as a marker that occasionally, every so often, there are public servants who can recognize the difference between self-interest and public interest. Sarah Palin is one such public servant.
- Thomas Van Flein, personal attorney for Sarah Palin
That pretty much says it all. We wrote about the complaint Mr Van Flein references. It was the most egregious, in our opinion. What makes this one particularly infuriating is the fact that the state hired a so-called "independent investigator" Thomas Daniel to look into this.
Thomas Daniel has a day job, by the way. When not "special investigating" Daniel works for the law firm, Perkins Coie. Who is Perkins Coie? Perkins Coie, a large firm, just happens to be Barack Obama’s personal attorney of record. They are also one of the firms the DNC turns to when they really need to steal a contested election.
Daniel, of course, acted exactly like you would expect someone of his caliber to act, he "leaked" information to the media on this case, even though that sort of thing is illegal. Of course, he didn’t tell them how Sarah was innocent or anything. Oh no, this is the guy that let it be known the FBI were gassing up the Crown Vics and getting ready to pick Sarah up!
Again, this prompted the FBI to come out and make a strong statement that they weren’t investigating the Governor and had absolutely no plans to.
In the closing, we are glad to see this nonsense come to an end. One thing it has proven though is that Sarah Palin is someone of strong character who will not back down and will not be intimidated. Since mid 2008 Obama, the media, the dirty trick squad, and all of the hangers-on, have thrown everything there is to throw at Sarah Palin, and she is not only still standing, but thriving.
This is why we started supporting Sarah Palin long before the rest of the nation knew of her. This is why we support her so passionately to this day. People like Sarah Palin, people of true character, are a real treasure. You just don’t see people like Sarah in politics. The few decent people that do get in, are usually run out by the dirty tricks squad. With Sarah Palin, you have someone who will run the bad guys out, and clean house.
The nation is better off with Sarah Palin as our true leader, our true strength.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
~ Thomas Jefferson
In Federalist 2, John Jay discusses the fact that by forming a government, the citizens indeed cede some of their Natural Rights, rights given to them by God, in order to further the cause of the greater good. It’s quite interesting to note that even as Jay campaigns for the continuation of the union, and the institution of government rules, he regards government as little more than a necessary evil. The price one pays for a successful, peaceful Civil Society. Growing up, everyone I knew felt this way about government.
It’s quite sad to look at America nowadays and see so many people who now think Big Government, rather than being the source of most problems, is indeed the answer. That people wish to depend on Big Government to care for their every wish and desire, rather than their own ingenuity and spirit, is a sad affair indeed.
As Jay points out, in forming a government, you must give up a portion of your rights, and hand them to representatives who act in your interest. (allegedly) It only stands to reason that the more you expect Big Government to "take care of you" the more of your Natural Rights you must give over to that government and those people. People who probably don’t have your best interests at heart. At some point you have traded all of your God Given Rights for a security of sorts. You have put your trust in man.
Sadly, governments of man fail to live up to their lofty promises, as man is imperfect. Knowing this, it makes little sense to give so much power to the government over your life, rather than rely on your greatest resource: Yourself.
This is not to say that one should never depend on government, or that government isn’t of some benefit. However...one must remember, always, that any government that is big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take away everything you have. That is simply too much power to be acceptable. Big Government is, in practice, little more than sanctioned tyranny. The more we give over to those who have the inbred desire, not to govern, but to RULE over men, the larger the tyranny grows.
Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence
For the Independent Journal.
Author: John Jay
To the People of the State of New York:
WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident.
Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government.
It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object. But politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties. However extraordinary this new doctrine may appear, it nevertheless has its advocates; and certain characters who were much opposed to it formerly, are at present of the number. Whatever may be the arguments or inducements which have wrought this change in the sentiments and declarations of these gentlemen, it certainly would not be wise in the people at large to adopt these new political tenets without being fully convinced that they are founded in truth and sound policy.
It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities.
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--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, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.
Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us. To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.
A strong sense of the value and blessings of union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay, at a time when their habitations were in flames, when many of their citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries and reflections which must ever precede the formation of a wise and wellbalanced government for a free people. It is not to be wondered at, that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer.
This intelligent people perceived and regretted these defects. Still continuing no less attached to union than enamored of liberty, they observed the danger which immediately threatened the former and more remotely the latter; and being pursuaded that ample security for both could only be found in a national government more wisely framed, they as with one voice, convened the late convention at Philadelphia, to take that important subject under consideration.
This convention composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men, undertook the arduous task. In the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool, uninterrupted, and daily consultation; and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any passions except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils.
Admit, for so is the fact, that this plan is only RECOMMENDED, not imposed, yet let it be remembered that it is neither recommended to BLIND approbation, nor to BLIND reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand, and which it certainly ought to receive. But this (as was remarked in the foregoing number of this paper) is more to be wished than expected, that it may be so considered and examined. Experience on a former occasion teaches us not to be too sanguine in such hopes. It is not yet forgotten that well-grounded apprehensions of imminent danger induced the people of America to form the memorable Congress of 1774. 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. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, from a mistaken estimate of consequences, or the undue influence of former attachments, or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were indefatigable in their efforts to pursuade the people to reject the advice of that patriotic Congress. 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.
They considered that the Congress was composed of many wise and experienced men. That, being convened from different parts of the country, they brought with them and communicated to each other a variety of useful information. That, in the course of the time they passed together in inquiring into and discussing the true interests of their country, they must have acquired very accurate knowledge on that head. That they were individually interested in the public liberty and prosperity, and therefore that it was not less their inclination than their duty to recommend only such measures as, after the most mature deliberation, they really thought prudent and advisable.
These and similar considerations then induced the people to rely greatly on the judgment and integrity of the Congress; and they took their advice, notwithstanding the various arts and endeavors used to deter them from it. But if the people at large had reason to confide in the men of that Congress, few of whom had been fully tried or generally known, still greater reason have they now to respect the judgment and advice of the convention, for it is well known that some of the most distinguished members of that Congress, who have been since tried and justly approved for patriotism and abilities, and who have grown old in acquiring political information, were also members of this convention, and carried into it their accumulated knowledge and experience.
It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress, as well as the late convention, have invariably joined with the people in thinking that the prosperity of America depended on its Union. To preserve and perpetuate it was the great object of the people in forming that convention, and it is also the great object of the plan which the convention has advised them to adopt. With what propriety, therefore, or for what good purposes, are attempts at this particular period made by some men to depreciate the importance of the Union? Or why is it suggested that three or four confederacies would be better than one? I am persuaded in my own mind that the people have always thought right on this subject, and that their universal and uniform attachment to the cause of the Union rests on great and weighty reasons, which I shall endeavor to develop and explain in some ensuing papers. They who promote the idea of substituting a number of distinct confederacies in the room of the plan of the convention, seem clearly to foresee that the rejection of it would put the continuance of the Union in the utmost jeopardy. That certainly would be the case, and I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly foreseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet: "FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS."
PUBLIUS.
A final thought: It’s interesting that after uniting for the common cause of Independence, just a few short years later many were advocating the break up of the several states into separate, un-affiliated, sovereign nations. This is what Hamilton was warning about in Federalist 1 when he spoke of self important politicians. Jay’s writing in Federalist 2 is dedicated to convincing the people to remain united.
This thinking on self important politicians applies today as well. We have devolved from a strong nation governed by our fellow citizens, to a deeply divided nation that has a very distinct ruling class that sees itself well above the rest of the population. This is the perfect example of what happens when one cedes too many of their God Given Natural Rights To Big Government, in exchange for a truly uncertain security and comfort.
Make sure you take time to visit Constituting America for further discussion of Federalist 2, as well as the Constitution. There are a number of essays by scholars that offer their viewpoints as well.
Remember when the radical left wing, including our President, as well as the squishy, gutless Republican "moderates" lost their minds when Sarah Palin said she wasn’t all that happy to know that her special needs son and aging parents would have to stand before Obama’s "death panels" and be evaluated before they received care? Yeah, me too.
There was a herculean effort to demonize Sarah Palin and to cover up the fact that there are indeed "death panels" to be set up to run ObamaCare. By the way...RomneyCare, the blueprint for ObamaCare, also has the same "death panels" and the health care rationing is already in progress.
And that’s what this is all about. We’ve talked about Dr Death, Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama’s health care adviser, and the creator of the "Complete Lives System," which advocates health care rationing to the really young, the old (50 and over) and the disabled. This cold, calculating, document goes into great detail concerning who "deserves" health care and who doesn’t.
Obviously, "death panels" is a metaphor for this evil system of health re-distribution that will lower the quality of care nationwide while greatly increasing the cost to the consumer. It’s why three out of four Americans want this entire unconstitutional and decidedly evil mess repealed and replaced with common sense reform that doesn’t involve the total government takeover of our lives.
Peter Orszag is the Budget Director for the Obama regime, he recently talked about the "death panels":
Related… Democrats ready insurance price controls to offset the huge insurance premium hikes Obamacare will trigger that they swore up and down Obamacare would not trigger.
About those huge insurance premium increases you are about to enjoy....(What, you thought you could add 30 million uninsured, plus ban "pre-existing conditions" for free? Silly you!)
Massachusetts is already trying to deal with skyrocketing premiums courtesy of Mitt Romney’s boondoggle. The answer? Prohibit the insurance companies from raising premiums, of course!
Typical Marxist tactic. This is why communism has failed every time it has been tried. You can’t force companies to sell their products at a loss. They can’t stay in business. With that said, courts in the Bay State have upheld the ban on raising premiums. RomneyCare is fixin’ to become a serious problem for residents of the state.
Predictably, Congress is looking at the same thing. This will drive insurance companies out of business, which was the end game all along, and put hundreds of thousands, if not millions out of work. Of course, the Marxists tell you not to cry for these businesses, because they are "evil" and only care about money. Well, these "evil" businesses are owned by stockholders, the average man on the street, who either owns shares outright, or through their retirement plan’s investment. The sort of lunacy Congress is pursuing will collapse our entire economy, which...of course...is the plan.
Reason Magazine has a great article concerning the coming premium hikes:
ObamaCare to Cost More Than Expected? Where Have I Heard This Before?
Peter Suderman
Today, as Nick Gillespie noted earlier, Washington is shocked, SHOCKED to learn that the Affordable Care Act might not be as easy to pay for as promised. According to an AP summary, a new report "found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned."
But didn't budget-hottie Peter Orszag warn us not to be swayed by such obviously false charges? After all, ObamaCare is fiscally responsible! What clan of knee-jerk critics could have produced such a report? The libertarians at Cato? The conservatives at Heritage? The neocons at AEI? The socialists at Physicians for a National Health Plan?
Nor did the report's bad news stop there. It also "projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, 'possibly jeopardizing access' to care for seniors." So when the President told AARP members that "nobody is talking about reducing Medicare benefits," presumably he meant nobody but, um, Medicare's chief actuary. But that doesn't really count, does it?
ObamaCare is a complete and total disaster, and it hasn’t even taken effect yet. It’s the typical product of the Big Government-Union-Industrial Complex. What’s sad is America had the canary in the coal mine to warn us. RomneyCare is a failure of biblical proportions, and it just keeps getting worse.
What makes us chuckle the most about this though is the fact that Sarah Palin, the hockey mom and moose hunter from Alaska, has once again proven to be smarter than her detractors. It’s funny, in her impassioned speech at the Republican National Convention, as she accepted the vice presidential nomination, she warned of the problems of electing Barack Obama, and the grave damage he, and his minions, would do to our country. So far every single ominous prediction she made has come true.
At some point one would think it would be prudent for the so-called "smart people" to start listening to this woman when she speaks. She’s batting 1000 so far.
We’ve now read the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution in full. While it’s not heavy reading, it is certainly important reading, and I hope everyone has taken the time to not only read, but reflect on the words written by our founders.
The Declaration still stands as one of the greatest, most significant political documents of all time. It’s inspired mankind the world over to seek the Freedom and Liberty Nature’s God always intended him to have. Our Constitution remains the cornerstone of all Liberty and Freedom. It is the ideal blueprint for Civil Society, and when followed, allows for individual Freedom and great governmental restraint. It is the ultimate expression of Conservatism.
As you know, any big idea, big change in one’s way of life, no matter how beneficial, takes a bit of salesmanship. The Federalist is just that. What we have is a collection of essays that were published in support of the Constitution’s ratification. They are also considered a guide to interpreting the original intent of our founders.
From the Library Of Congress:
The Federalist, commonly referred to as the Federalist Papers, is a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison between October 1787 and May 1788. The essays were published anonymously, under the pen name "Publius," in various New York state newspapers of the time.
The Federalist Papers were written and published to urge New Yorkers to ratify the proposed United States Constitution, which was drafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. In lobbying for adoption of the Constitution over the existing Articles of Confederation, the essays explain particular provisions of the Constitution in detail. For this reason, and because Hamilton and Madison were each members of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers are often used today to help interpret the intentions of those drafting the Constitution.
The Federalist Papers were published primarily in two New York state newspapers: The New York Packet and The Independent Journal. They were reprinted in other newspapers in New York state and in several cities in other states. A bound edition, with revisions and corrections by Hamilton, was published in 1788 by printers J. and A. McLean. An edition published by printer Jacob Gideon in 1818, with revisions and corrections by Madison, was the first to identify each essay by its author's name. Because of its publishing history, the assignment of authorship, numbering, and exact wording may vary with different editions of The Federalist.
The reason we are all taking time to rediscover our founding documents is the situation we find ourselves in today, as we face a tyrannical, out of control government, headed by a corrupt and decidedly un-American executive.
I find it interesting that Hamilton warns us in Federalist 1 of politicians who would place power and importance over service to their country. He most decidedly foresaw the situation we have now. While it would be easy to just blame this on the Marxist-democrats, sadly, both parties are guilty of loving personal power more than their country. I’m intrigued, frankly, that knowing the nature of man, and power, and how power can corrupt man, that our founders didn’t place some sort of term limits on elected officials from the start.
This is why we must evaluate each and every vote for each and every position. We owe it to ourselves and the nation to spend the effort needed to actually know who it is that is asking for our vote, so that we never find ourselves in this dangerous situation again.
Federalist 1 serves as an introduction to the series of essays to come. It’s what we would call today "common sense," but at the time the concepts of a restrained government, led by citizen legislators, was a new thing indeed. As one can imagine, there were also folks who had other ideas of how things should be.
In Federalist 1 Hamilton gives us his general view on how the nation should be shaped, and the caliber of those needed to shape her. I recommend readers take their time and reflect as they go. Though the words were written several centuries ago, they are still pertinent today.
AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.
This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.
Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.
It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.
And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a 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. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.
In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.
I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars:
THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY.
In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.
It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State, and one, which it may be imagined, has no adversaries. But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole. [1] This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it. For nothing can be more evident, to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall accordingly constitute the subject of my next address.
PUBLIUS.
1. The same idea, tracing the arguments to their consequences, is held out in several of the late publications against the new Constitution.
For more information, and discussion, please check out Constituting America here.
You can also visit The Library of Congress for more information on The Federalist here.
