Liberty And Freedom: Sarah Palin vs. Mitt Romney

By Gary P Jackson

This video shows both Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney expressing their thoughts on Liberty, Freedom, and the role of government. The differences between Sarah Palin's desire for every man and woman to be free vs Romney's desire for government to control people's lives, couldn't be more telling.

Video courtesy Shellymic

Sarah Palin: Removing the Boot from the Throat of American Businesses

You may know the Obama regime is up to their same old dirty tricks again. This time they are going after Boeing, simply because of where they are gearing up to build new aircraft. Boeing is a successful company, and it's newest model is selling well. They have facilities in both Washington State and South Carolina. The company has chosen South Carolina to expand production.

Now in normal times, this would be a story of a successful product and a celebration over all of the jobs this will create in the horrid Obama economy. These are not normal times. Like Texas, South Carolina is a "right to work" state. This means men and women are able to enjoy the Liberty and Freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. South Carolinians, like Texans, are free to work without having to pay "tribute" to corrupt unions in order to have a job.

In Obama's bizarro world, being a free person, rather than a slave to union thugs, is a sin. As suck, Obama is using the full weight of government to punish Boeing for daring to do what's best for the company, it's stockholders, and it's workers. All of this under the guise of the National Labor Relations Board.

Unions are some of Obama's strongest supporters. Not necessarily the rank and file, but certainly the thugs who run these outfits, who take worker's dues, and funnel them straight to the democrat party. The mafia style tactics being used by both the unions and the Obama regime are why we support a national "right to work" law that would allow American citizens to work anywhere and everywhere without the union thugs picking their pockets for the privilege.

Sarah Palin weighs in on what amounts to little more than organized crime and rackateering:

President Obama has the opportunity to prove that he cares about keeping jobs for working class families in America. He can speak up about his appointees at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) who have their boots on The Boeing Company’s neck. Does the President support the rights of businesses and working class people in right-to-work states to make sound decisions without government regulatory agencies unfairly punishing them?

Does the President realize the real concern here is not that businesses will choose to locate in one state over another? It’s that businesses will choose to locate in other countries because thanks to the Obama administration’s job killing policies and over-reaching regulatory boards the business climate in the United States is growing toxic. South Carolina’s Senator Jim DeMint reminded President Obama that the President said in his State of the Union address: "We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business." I agree with this sentiment, Mr. President. If we want to keep good paying jobs for working class families in the United States then you shouldn’t pit South Carolina against Washington state because eventually every state will suffer when businesses declare "enough is enough" with these tactics and decide to relocate in more business-friendly countries.

~ Sarah Palin

A Passion for Freedom: Why America Loves Sarah Palin

Guest blogger and friend C.A. Bamford shares with us her wonderful words on why America loves Sarah Palin

America was born under a lucky star. Never before, and perhaps never again, could everything come together to create such a nation. The courageous early explorers who came to this bountiful land were followed by strong, determined people willing to work hard and to endure much hardship for the opportunity to build a good and free life for themselves and their children. Those who were strong enough, survived and prospered.

The first settlements grew into towns, cities, and colonies that were still under the control of the British. As we grew, those who ruled began to demand more and more from the independent Americans.

When the freedoms of these early citizens were threatened, they protested. They gathered in the homes, the taverns, the churches, and the streets of the villages where they lived. When the British elite refused to listen, they rose up to fight for what they were not willing to lose. They fought with whatever weapons they had; muskets, pitchforks…or their bare hands. As the war dragged on for months and then years, this ragtag army often went without food, without pay…and sometimes without boots, their feet wrapped in burlap. They lost battle after battle. Many grew discouraged and returned to their homes. But those who remained had a passion for freedom and they had exceptional leadership. On Christmas Day 1776, when it seemed certain the war was lost, the colonial army, led by General George Washington made one last desperate attempt with the few thousand men who were all that remained of the original 30,000. Hungry, cold, exhausted and ill-equipped, Washington and his men knew all they had left was faith and determination. But in the darkest hours of the night, in a freezing rain, Washington’s men crossed the iced-filled Delaware to surprise the British soldiers, and turn the tide of war in favor of the colonists.

The new country was blessed with wise men of good character, who willingly stepped forward to lead the building of our republic. Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine…and so many more extraordinary men who came together to create one of the greatest governments the world has ever known. This foundation, built on the faith, determination, and courage of our founding fathers and ordinary heroes has lasted for almost two and a half centuries.

Now once again our country and our freedoms are threatened by enemies both without and within. We are threatened by complacency, by greed, and by ignorance. But once again, citizens who have a passion for freedom have gathered to protest…and to fight for what we are not willing to lose. The unchecked threat of terrorism has invaded our nation. The strong constitution that our founding fathers gave us when they created our extraordinary republic is under attack and our freedoms are being taken away one by one. Our weapons are the ballot box and our legislative process. And our army is the American people and the few good leaders we have in our halls of government.

But alone, among the many courageous voices that are speaking out for our country, one woman stands out. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin stepped up when asked by John McCain to be his running mate in 2008, only to be met with such vitriol and hatred on the part of the elite that our nation had never before seen. She has endured the attacks of those who would see our country become a powerless pawn in the pool of world serfdom envisioned by a small coterie of fanatically power hungry lunatics.

For almost two years, our citizens suffered defeat after defeat at the hands of these people. But like General Washington, Governor Palin has faith in our country and like him; she has the determination, the knowledge, and the courage to continue fighting. She knows our nation’s history, and believes in its greatness. She leads with fairness, wisdom, and ingenuity. And against all odds she almost single handedly unified working Americans to turn the tide against the enemies of America on November 2, 2010.

Palin understands that faith, family, and hard work are the solid bedrock of our country’s greatness. Like all of us, she has experienced success and failure. Like us, Sarah and her husband have struggled to meet the day to day needs of their family, and she has rolled up her sleeves and worked along side him just as so many of us do. She knows that the most precious gift our founders gave us is opportunity…not a government to take care of us. Like Ronald Reagan, she knows that it is not government, but "We the People" that makes our nation strong.

Our country is again blessed to have wise and good leaders step forward to lead the re-building of a nation that so many generations of patriots have given their toil and blood to defend and preserve. But it is to Sarah Palin that we look for fearless and outspoken leadership. Sarah symbolizes the resolve of courageous Americans who grow in number every day…Americans who have a passion for freedom, and who will not let it die.

C.A. Bamford is an author and Conservative activist. We look forward to publishing more of her excellent writing in the future.

~ Gary

Obesity Policy Expert: Sarah Palin Is Right, Michelle Obama And Mike Huckabee Are Wrong

We've said this before, but get used to seeing "Sarah Palin was right and [fill in the blank] was wrong" a lot in the many years to come.

Though he comes at it from a different angle, the editors of National Review Online highlight prominent New York University obesity-policy scholar Rogan Kersh's take on the obesity issue. Our take is the First Lady and Huckabee are Big Government, Nanny State progressives who are a direct threat to personal Liberty and Freedom. Kersh comes at it from the medical angle and scientific angle.

From NRO:

One key ingredient in Sarah Palin’s political dynamite is the cheerful scorn with which she regards Washington, a small but zesty serving of which she recently dished up for First Lady Michelle Obama and her anti-obesity crusade. During an episode of her reality show, the once (and future?) candidate cooked up a mess of hot s’mores and a side of even hotter politics, declaring: “This is in honor of Michelle Obama, who said the other day we should not have dessert.”

Palin was being over-generous in her paraphrase. What Mrs. Obama in fact said was considerably more worrisome: “We can’t just leave it up the parents.” Her particular target was unhealthful school lunches, which parents presumably require help from distant federal authorities to improve; it is clear from this and much else that the first lady envisions a very broad role for the federal government in menu planning. If her vision leaves any room for limitation on government interference in family affairs, it is impossible to detect it. Palin, responding specifically to this boundless license for federal meddling, later expanded on her views: “Instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us, according to some politician’s — or politician’s wife’s — priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us, as individuals, to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions.” (There is something particularly delicious in Palin’s tone when she pronounces the words “politician’s wife” — if there should be such a thing as a Palin administration, we are confident that the apparently easygoing Mr. Palin will not evolve into the first scold.)

As is the case with practically all things Palin, this latest statement has led to a predictable chorus of harrumphing nanny-staters, not every one of whom is obviously qualified to lecture the body politic on healthful eating. CNN’s fulsome Roland Martin declared Palin’s observation “so stupid that it defies logic,” and added that the former governor is too ignorant to “understand how devastating obesity is to the future of the United States.” Defying logic, Mr. Martin, along with practically all of Mrs. Palin’s critics on the issue, is missing a piece in his argument: specifically, even a smattering of evidence that busybody campaigns of the sort in which Mrs. Obama is engaged are likely to do more good than harm when it comes to extraordinarily complex issues such as obesity — which is indeed positioned to impose significant costs, both financial and human, on the American people.

The evidence is, in fact, to the contrary, suggesting that well-intentioned government policies will make the problem worse: To the extent that political action has thus far affected American obesity, it has been a thumb on the wrong side of the scales, subsidizing the worst kinds of foods through the farm-subsidy and school-lunch programs, and often giving out precisely the wrong kind of dietary advice.

Obesity is, in truth, among our least tractable public-health problems. It is an absolute Gordian knot of nutrition, behavior, genetics, child-rearing environments, hormonal biology, economics, and other factors too numerous and too subtle to catalog. As New York University obesity-policy scholar Rogan Kersh has noted, the problem “has proved impervious to clinical treatment or public-health exhortation,” and it is by no means clear what, if anything, public policy can accomplish, or what the best avenue for reform is, if indeed there is one. For an administration prone to smug castigation of its predecessors for their allegedly insufficient deference to scientific expertise, the Obama team is here shockingly cavalier about a scientific question of substantial depth and complexity. If Mrs. Obama, between her undergraduate major in sociology, her minor in African-American studies, and her law degree somehow managed also to acquire a great deal of expertise regarding a medical issue that has proved remarkably difficult for actual scholars and learned authorities, she has not seen fit to share how and where she acquired it.

Mrs. Obama’s “eat your veggies” crusade is at once a remarkably shallow response and a remarkably ambitious one: She may know next to nothing about the deeper issues, but she has adamant faith that the transformative quality of political power will allow even the most ignorant politician — or politician’s wife — to ameliorate any problem, even one that has thus far proved “impervious to clinical treatment.” By the same token, Mrs. Palin’s dismissal of that conceit contains more wisdom than is understood by political entrepreneurs of the Obama variety or by their factota in the media. Advantage: Palin.

First ladies have their causes, the general rule of which is that they do less damage the farther away from public policy they stay. If the Obama administration should happen to win the wars (and keep the won wars won) and balance the budget, head off the looming fiscal crisis, and present the American people with the head of Osama bin Laden, perhaps at that time it can get back to us about the broccoli. Until then, we have more of an appetite for Mrs. Palin’s healthy skepticism of governmental ambition than for Mrs. Obama’s overegged federal pudding: Washington has enough on its plate.

Dr Kersh is right, of course. Now granted there are lazy people who just eat too much and won't exercise, but for every one of those there are dozens who have real problems maintaining "approved weight." These issues are indeed complex. One can simply lose the genetic lottery, or there can be a combination of problems. Since science and medicine haven't found cures, it's reasonable to think no government intrusion in our lives can.

In the end, it all boils down to Freedom and Liberty. Of course, with Freedom and Liberty comes personal responsibility. This is something progressives can't tolerate. A free people, left to make their own decisions, good or bad, doesn't NEED government's help. That puts the progressives out of business, since their entire reason for living is telling others how to live their life. [No matter how poor of a job they have done living their own!]

The government already has problems fulfilling it constitutional requirements, only a fool would think having government take even MORE control of our lives will turn out well.

Just A Reminder Of Who We Are Up Against

Communists, Socialists, Revolutionaries …. Oh my!

Just a reminder of the sort we are fighting against. This video was taken at the “One Nation” rally, that took place at the Washington Mall, in response to Glenn Beck's wildly successful Restoring Honor rally that was held on August 28.

The “One Nation” rally was sponsored Barack Obama's permanent campaign Organizing For America, as well as SEIU, the AFL-CIO, and all of the Soros funded groups, which run into the hundreds.

Notice all of the Socialist and Communist paraphernalia, and it's violent imagery. Hard to miss all the Che Guevara imagery are well. It's quite telling that one of the worst mass murders in history has become the symbol for the democrat party, and Obama.

It's not like America wasn't warned of this either. If you remember, in Houston, Texas, one of Barack Obama's campaign headquarters offices prominently featured a Cuba flag with Che's picture on it. World Net Daily reported at the time it was disturbing that Obama attracts “people who think mass murderers are romantic revolutionaries.”





Americans were warned in 2008 who these people are, but most laughed it off. Well, who's laughing now?

This is why your vote next Tuesday is so important.

Americans have a clear choice: You can vote for Freedom, Liberty, and the Rule of Law, or you can vote for radical Communists who want to take all of your freedom away. Radicals who worship mass murders like Mao, Stalin, and Che Guevara.

Sarah Palin: Our Old Lame Stream Media? "Put A Fork In It, It’s Done!"

Sarah Palin gave a fiery speech in Reno, Nevada on Monday to kick off the coast-to-coast Tea Party Express "Liberty At The Ballot Box" national tour. The entire speech was strong and defiant, while at the same time being wonderfully up beat and positive.

One point kinda sticks out though, and that's when Sarah went to her favorite punching bag, the corrupt lame stream media. In this video clip she looks over at the assembled international press corps and has a "come to Jesus" meeting with them and the crowd.

She chastises the media, who she notes, are supposed to be the impartial referees, and yet work more as publicity arms of the left wing. As she points out, the cornerstone of our democracy is a free and HONEST press. She also notes they are a failure at their jobs.

Sarah then tells the crowd that we needn't  wait for the old lame stream media to do it's job, that their way of doing business is over. "Put a fork in it, it's done!"

Sarah Palin field dressed the media today like a bull moose after she shot it!

To see her entire speech check our link here.

Video courtesy of The Right Scoop

Sarah Palin Kicks Off Tea Party Express "Liberty At The Ballot Box" Tour

May we always be happy, and may our enemies always know it.

~ Sarah Palin

On Monday under the beautiful Reno, Nevada skies, Sarah Palin helped kick off the coast-to-coast Tea Party Express "Liberty At The Ballot Box" national tour, the final push to take by Congress.

There is so much red meat here it's hard to pick out the best parts. As she has been in every single appearance for some time, Sarah was on fire. You see a determination in her eyes and hear it in her voice. Sarah is in command, and taking no prisoners.

The crowd is pumped up and ready to go. You will be too after this!

Video courtesy of The Right Scoop

Restoring Honor

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Saturday August 28, 2010 will go down in history as the start of a great awakening. America is a great country, the greatest civilization has ever known. The only country where man has been truly free. The problem is, we have lost our way.

Our Founding Fathers based this nation, and it’s Constitution on the fact we all have certain unalienable rights granted to us by our creator. Unlike other nations before, or since, our Constitution was designed to restrain government and protect our God given rights, in order to maintain Liberty and Freedom.

Over the last 100 years, as the Marxist-progressive movement gained more and more control over government, we have seen our rights eroded, and our First Principles ignored. In order for the Marxist-progressives to be successful, they had to work at eroding the morals of the American people. They also had to get God, and any mention of God, out of the public square. To the Statist, Government replaces God. Man replaces God.

Sadly, the left has been most successful at this. As such, we have lost our way.

People who regularly watch Glenn Beck know that he is a man on a mission. Besides his regular weekly show, where he has been doing an amazing job of exposing the corruption that IS the Obama regime, Glenn devotes his Friday show towards educating Americans of their real history.

Glenn has re-introduced America to our leaders. He’s also setting the record straight, correcting the lies Marxist-progressives, who control much of education, thus what is taught as historical fact have been teaching. Glenn has introduced a whole new generation to our real history.

Glenn has had several Black history days, as well as Black leadership forums, including ones our friends Adrienne Ross and Clifton B have participated in. He’s had Hispanic forums as well.

The point is, America needs to not only learn the truth about it’s roots, but get back to them. This Restoring Honor rally is yet another step toward this. Though official numbers aren’t out yet, knowing that the area around the reflecting pool at the Lincoln Memorial holds 250,000 people, and the field beside it holds 350,000, both were full, and people overflowed all around, gives us some idea. So far estimates are from a low of 500,000 to a high of 1 million.

We weren’t able to attend, but did watch the event live courtesy of C-Span. It was the most moving event I have witnessed in quite some time. Beck promised the event would be non-political, and kept his word. He also request that attendees bring no signs, but bring their children. That’s exactly what they did.

Glenn had some amazing guests, including Sarah Palin, who was there not as our leader, but as the mother of a soldier. She told the story of three remarkable heroes and introduced them to the crowd. Dr Alveda King, Dr Martin Luther King’s niece was also there, and gave her own "I have a dream" speech that was amazing.

If you missed the event, we have video, courtesy of The Right Scoop. This truly is must see TV:







For a higher quality version, you can check out C-span here.

Of course, none of this was without controversy. In fact, the left and the media (same thing) lost it’s mind. The same people who are begging for tolerance for the radical Muslims who want to build the 9/11 Victory Mosque at Ground Zero, were outraged that the Restoring Honor rally was allowed to happen.


As this was the anniversary of Dr King’s "I have a dream" speech, a date Beck insists was a coincidence, the radical left was uniquely indignant. How dare all of these Americans talk about Faith, Hope, and Charity, as well as the content of character on the date of a speech that called for all men to be judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin!

Race hustler Al Sharpton threw a counter event, but almost no one showed up. It was nothing more than a hate fest declaring the Restoring Honor rally was "stealing King’s legacy." If that sounds familiar, it’s basically the same argument the radical feminists trot out against Sarah Palin, claiming she’s trying to hijack feminism. The left only has one very small playbook.

Below is a video from Reason TV with host Nick Gillespie. It’s exactly what you expect it to be, but a little more fair than most reporting. I only include it because at one point Gillespie encounters a Black woman and acts stupidly. The best part is when he refers to her as an "African-American." It’s truly worth watching just for her response. She is an AMERICAN and makes that point quite clear! 







I made the mistake of flipping over to CNN, as Fox wasn’t carrying the rally live, and I was quite curious at how the far left would cover this thing. (MSNBC was AWOL) I tuned in as Sarah Palin was speaking, but since all she was talking about was honor and heroism, that wasn’t working for the network.

Hilariously, a little later on, as Reverend C.L. Jackson from Houston, Texas was giving an amazing speech, instead of showing it, the CNN anchorette chose instead to go to their on ground "reporter" who spent the whole time talking about how there were nothing but a lot of white folks there!

The "whole lot of white folks" was a theme for all of the coverage, just as it is a staple for any coverage of Tea Party events, including those headlined by Black conservatives. It’s quite shameful. But par for the course.

Jim Treacher over at the Daily Caller complied a sampling of the biased coverage from the usual suspects that you can see here.

For a photo slideshow of the event go here.

Oh, and remember CNN? Not only are the biased hacks over there, their graphics department ain’t too hot either, as the folks at SondraK point out.

In closing, Beck’s Restoring Honor rally is yet another sign that America is in the middle of a great awakening. More Americans than ever before are engaged in what is going on around them. They are paying attention.They are taking action.

Folks understand now where the wheels started coming off the wagon. Now they are actively working to set things right again. Glenn is playing a big roll in this. His "Founders Fridays" are a must see if you want to learn some real history, and understand how the left has perverted that history for their own gain.

Our Friends over at The Right Scoop archive Beck’s show daily, so a little hunting though their website and you can catch up on any "Founders Friday" you have missed. It is worth the effort to do so.

Dreams & Ideas

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

~ Ronald Reagan

Yes, I know .... every episode of the Glenn Beck Show is must see TV, but today’s is especially thought provoking, especially considering where Obama has our nation headed.





As Glenn talks about the new Kenyan constitution, one must realize that President Barack Obama, the son of the father, illegally funded the process with American taxpayer money.

Not only does the Obama supported constitution impose Soviet style communism on the Kenyan people, it also forces Sharia law on the non-Muslim country.

Gateway Pundit has more details here.

As if imposing the draconian laws from the 7th Century, as well as the horrifically failed policies of communism wasn’t enough, it’s also being reported that Obama insisted Kenya legalize abortion.

I guess it’s not enough for Obama to champion the wholesale slaughter of innocent life in this country, our most pro-abortion President in history looks to export this barbaric practice worldwide. What a legacy to leave the world!

Life News has much, much more on this troubling development here.


Here is the rest of this thought provoking episode of the Glenn Beck Show:












It’s a shame our corrupt media never took time to actually look into Barack Obama’s life during the election. They need to be held responsible for the nightmare this nation, and the rest of the word faces, as the result of their shilling for Obama and placing him in power. 

What you see in Kenya is where Obama would like to take the nation. He’s said it over and over, if you just listen to the man’s words. Obama was raised by communists to be a communist ideologue, and that’s a fact.Destroying America, and replacing our Constitution with one similar to Kenya's would be his everlasting tribute to dear old dad. His "crowning achievement."

As Beck points out, we are living history right now. America is at a real turning point. We are not that far away from having the big Iron Curtain of Communism fall on this nation. This is Obama’s stated goal.

This is why November is so vital, and why you simply can no longer sit back and do nothing.

Obama and his party of Marxists must be stopped at all costs or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.


Video courtesy of The Right Scoop.

Sarah Palin Lays Out Her Aggressive Agenda For National Security, Liberty, Freedom, And The American Way .... Video Included

Speaking at Freedom Fest in Norfolk, Virginia Sarah Palin laid out her very aggressive agenda for the nation. This is a powerful indictment of the Obama regime, and the corrupt "lamestream media" as well.

Fresh from her speech at California State University, at Stanislaus, where she spoke of American exceptionalism, and the need to get back to the basics in education, and raised more money for the university than any other speaker in history, Sarah came to Virginia ready to take on the big issues that we face.

With every passing speech, every new appearance, Sarah Palin looks more powerful, more in control, and more presidential. This is a compelling speech, where she implores the American people not to settle for second best. She tells us not to allow Barack Obama and his minions get away with saying America’s finest hours are behind us, and that we are just another nation among nations. Don’t let Obama and the rest of the Marxist-democrats tell you America is not the greatest force for good the world has ever known.

Sarah implores us not to just say "no," to the Obama agenda, but "Hell No!"

Here’s video of the speech:







Below is a partial transcript Sarah released today via her Facebook blog:

Peace Through Strength and American Pride vs. "Enemy-Centric" Policy

Earlier this week, I spoke at the Freedom Fest in Norfolk, Virginia; and, evidently, the media was asked to leave – not by me, that’s for sure. I want my message out, so despite reporters making up a story about "Palin people kicking us out" (uh, the "Palin people" entourage would consist of one person – my 15-year-old daughter, Willow – and I have no doubt she could take on any reporter, but I know for certain she didn’t "kick ‘em out" of the event). Anyway, here are some of the key issues I spoke about.

DEFENSE SPENDING

It takes a lot of resources to maintain the best fighting force in the world – especially at a time when we face financial uncertainty and a mountain of debt that threatens all of our futures.

We have a federal government that is spending trillions, and that has nationalized whole sections of our economy: the auto industry, the insurance industry, health care, student loans, the list goes on – all of it at enormous cost to the tax payer. The cost of Obamacare alone is likely to exceed $2.5 trillion dollars.

As a result of all these trillion dollar spending bills, America’s going bust in a hurry. By 2020 we may reach debt levels of $20 trillion – twice the debt that we have today! It reminds me of that joke I read the other day: "Please don’t tell Obama what comes after a trillion!"

Something has to be done urgently to stop the out of control Obama-Reid-Pelosi spending machine, and no government agency should be immune from budget scrutiny. We must make sure, however, that we do nothing to undermine the effectiveness of our military. If we lose wars, if we lose the ability to deter adversaries, if we lose the ability to provide security for ourselves and for our allies, we risk losing all that makes America great! That is a price we cannot afford to pay.

This may be obvious to you and me, but I am not sure the Obama Administration gets it. There isn’t a single progressive pet cause which they haven’t been willing to throw billions at. But when it comes to defense spending, all of a sudden they start preaching a message of "fiscal restraint." Our Defense Secretary recently stated the "gusher" of defense spending was over and that it was time for the Department of Defense to tighten its belt. There’s a gusher of spending alright, but it’s not on defense. Did you know the US actually only ranks 25th worldwide on defense spending as a percentage of GDP? We spend three times more on entitlements and debt services than we do on defense.

Now don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing wrong with preaching fiscal conservatism. I want the federal government to balance its budget right now! And not the Washington way – which is raising your taxes to pay for their irresponsible spending habits. I want it done the American way: by cutting spending, reducing the size of government, and letting people keep more of their hard-earned cash.

But the Obama administration doesn’t practice what it preaches. This is an administration that won’t produce a budget for fear that we discover how reckless they’ve been as fiscal managers. At the same time, it threatens to veto a defense bill because of an extra jet engine!

This administration may be willing to cut defense spending, but it’s increasing it everywhere else. I think we should do it the other way round: cut spending in other departments – apart from defense. We should not be cutting corners on our national security.

THE U.S. NAVY

Secretary Gates recently spoke about the future of the US Navy. He said we have to "ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines, and $11 billion carriers." He went on to ask, "Do we really need... more strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?"

Well, my answer is pretty simple: Yes, we can and, yes, we do because we must. Our Navy has global responsibilities. It patrols sea lanes and safeguards the freedoms of our allies – and ourselves. The Navy right now only has 286 ships, and that number may decrease. That will limit our options, extend tours for Navy personnel, lessen our ability to secure our allies and deter our adversaries. The Obama administration seems strangely unconcerned about this prospect.

OBAMA’S FOREIGN POLICY INHERITANCE

When George W. Bush came into office, he inherited a military that had been cut deeply, an al Qaeda that had been unchallenged, and an approach to terrorism that focused on bringing court cases rather than destroying those who sought to destroy us. We saw the result of some of that on 9/11.

When President Obama came into office, he inherited a military that was winning in Iraq. He inherited loyal allies and strong alliances. And thanks to the lamestream media pawing and purring over him, he had the benefit of unparalleled global popularity. What an advantage! So their basic foreign policy outlines should have been clear. Commit to the War on Terror. Commit to winning – not ending, but winning the war in Afghanistan. Commit to the fight against violent Islamic extremism wherever it finds sanctuary. Work with our allies. Be resolute with our adversaries. Promote liberty, not least because it enhances our security. Unfortunately, these basic principles seem to have been discarded by Washington.

THE WAR ON TERROR

His administration has banned the phrase "war on terror," preferring instead politically correct nonsense like "overseas contingency operations." His Homeland Security Secretary calls acts of terrorism "man-caused disasters." His reckless plan to close Guantanamo (because there’s no place to go after it’s closed) faces bipartisan opposition now.

The Attorney General just announced that a decision about where to try terrorists like 9/11 master mind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would not be announced until after the mid-term elections. Is there something he’s afraid to tell us?

The President’s new National Security Strategy does not even use the word "Islamic" when referring to violent extremism. Does he think the ideology of those who seek to kill Americans is irrelevant? How can we seek to defeat an enemy if we don’t acknowledge what motivates them and what their ultimate goals are? President Obama may think he is being politically correct by dropping the term, but it flies in the face of reality. As Senator Joe Lieberman noted, refusing to use the word Islamic when describing the nature of the threat we face is "Orwellian and counterproductive."

AFGHANISTAN

In Afghanistan, it is true that President Obama approved deploying additional forces to the conflict – most, but not all the troops requested by commanders on the ground. But it took months of indecision to get to that point, and it came at a very high price – a July 2011 date to begin withdrawal.

This date was arbitrary! It bears no relation to conditions on the ground. It sends all the wrong signals to our friends and to our enemies. We know our commanders on the ground are not comfortable with it.

As that great Navy war hero, Senator John McCain recently put it: "The decision to begin withdrawing our forces from Afghanistan arbitrarily in July 2011 seems to be having exactly the effect that many of us predicted it would: It is convincing the key actors inside and outside of Afghanistan that the United States is more interested in leaving than succeeding in this conflict."

Does the President really believe the Taliban and al Qaeda won’t be empowered by his naming of a starting date for withdrawal? They now believe they can beat him simply by outlasting us. What sort of effect does he think this will have on the morale of our troops – and of our allies?

ALIENATING OUR ALLIES

It’s not the only area where the Obama administration has failed our allies. They escalated a minor zoning issue in Jerusalem into a major dispute with our most important ally in the Middle East, Israel. They treated the Israeli Prime Minister shabbily in Washington. When a Turkish sponsored flotilla threatened to violate a legal Israeli blockade of Hamas-run Gaza, the Obama Administration was silent. When Israeli commandos were assaulted as they sought to prevent unmonitored cargoes from being delivered to Hamas terrorists, the Obama Administration sent signals it might allow a UN investigation into the matter – an investigation that would be sure to condemn our ally Israel and bemoan the plight of Hamas. Loyal NATO allies in central Europe were undermined by the cancellation of a missile defense program with virtually no warning. At the same time, Russia and China are given preferential treatment, while remaining silent on their human rights violations.

CODDLING ADVERSARIES

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration reaches out to some of the world’s worst regimes. They shake hands with dictators like Hugo Chavez, send letters to the Iranian mullahs and envoys to North Korea, ease sanctions on Cuba and talk about doing the same with Burma. That’s when they’re not on one of their worldwide apology tours.

Do we get anything in return for all this bowing and apologizing? No, we don’t. Yes, Russia voted for a weak sanctions resolution on Iran, but it immediately stated it could sell advanced anti-aircraft missile to Iran anyway, and would not end its nuclear cooperation. In response to North Korea’s unprovoked sinking of a South Korean Navy ship, China warned us not to take part in military exercises with our ally.

And while President Obama lets America get pushed around by the likes of Russia and China, our allies are left to wonder about the value of an alliance with the U.S. They have to be wondering if it’s worth it.

AN "ENEMY-CENTRIC" FOREIGN POLICY

It has led one prominent Czech official to call Obama’s foreign policy "enemy-centric." And this "enemy-centric" approach has real consequences. It not only baffles our allies, it worries them. When coupled with less defense spending, it signals to the world that maybe we can no longer be counted on, and that we have other priorities than being the world leader that keeps the peace and provides security in Europe, in Asia and throughout the world.

Together with this enemy-centric foreign policy, we see a lessening of the long, bipartisan tradition of speaking out for human rights and democracy. The Secretary of State said she would not raise human rights with China because "we pretty much know what they are going to say." Democracy promotion programs have been cut. Support for the brave Iranians protesting their government was not forthcoming because President Obama would rather try to cut a deal with their oppressors.

When the world’s dictators see the United States unconcerned with human rights and political freedom, they breathe a sigh of relief, because they know they have a free hand to repress their own people.

This goes against the very ideals on which our republic was founded. There is a long bipartisan tradition of speaking out in favor of freedom – from FDR to Ronald Reagan. America loses something very important when its President consigns human rights and freedom to the back burner of its international priorities.

A DIFFERENT VIEW OF AMERICA

We have a President, perhaps for the very first time since the founding of our republic, who doesn’t appear to believe that America is the greatest earthly force for good the world has ever known.

When asked whether he believed in American exceptionalism, President Obama answered, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Amazing. Amazing.

I think this statement speaks volumes about his world view. He sees nothing unique in the American experience? Really? Our founding, and our founding mothers and fathers? Really? And our history over the past two and half centuries?

Really? He sees nothing unique in an America that fought and won two world wars and in victory sought not one inch of territory or one dollar of plunder? He sees nothing unique in an America that, though exhausted by conflict, still laid the foundation for security in Europe and Asia after World War II? He sees nothing unique in an America that prevailed against an evil ideology in the Cold War? Does he just see a country that has to be apologized for around the world, especially to dictators?

President Obama actually seems reluctant to even embrace American power. Earlier this year when he was asked about his faltering Middle East peace process, he said "whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower." Whether we like it or not?! Really? Mr. President, this may come as news to you, but most Americans actually do like it. And so do our allies. They know it was our military might that liberated countless millions from tyranny, slavery, and oppression over the last 234 years. Yes, we do like it. As a dominant superpower, the United States has won wars hot and cold; our military has advanced the cause of freedom and kept authoritarian powers in check.

It is in America’s and the world’s best interests for our country to remain the dominant military superpower, but under President Obama’s leadership that dominance may be slipping away. It’s the result of an agenda that reeks of complacency and defeatism.

(I went on from there to talk about our need to end the negative, defeatist attitudes of those in leadership. I spoke further on American exceptionalism, and Willow and I ended a great evening with some great patriots. Sorry the media chose to report anything other than what actually happened at the event.)

- Sarah Palin

I want to address the question of this blogger, who none of us has ever heard of, but indeed has a blog, that claims he was kicked out of Freedom Fest after a few minutes of blogging Sarah’s speech.

Now we find that rather a dubious claim on many levels. People live blog from pretty much every speech Sarah gives, especially events like this. People park on Twitter waiting anxiously for every quote, every tidbit of information about the event, hungry for all things Palin.

Another thing, this blogger claims he was invited by one of the event sponsors to cover this deal, and was credentialed. I’ve been to a lot of events, and credentialed media is rarely hassled. Past that, if the guy was there at the behest of a sponsor, how hard would it have been to drop a name or two? (It’s always worked for us!)

Some have suggested that maybe an outsider, posing as an event official, an "agent provocateur" may have wondered in to cause trouble, but that’s getting out there where the buses don’t run.

The thing that makes us really doubt this blogger’s story is the fact that video, clearly shot from someone in the audience, exists. If they were kicking out fully credentialed and somewhat "official" bloggers, how did the video posted by "Daily Press News" come into being?

Inquiring minds want to know.

You’ll read more about this in the coming days I’m sure, but as Stacy Drake wrote in her latest offering, this is all about stealing the headlines away from what Sarah actually has to say, the substance, and mis-directing you somewhere else.

There are a whole lot of people both Marxist-democrats, and establishment Republicans, who would just as soon you didn’t pay attention to Sarah Palin and her strong message. They just as soon you forget she is one of the few real leaders this nation has.

Sarah Palin is a real leader, a strong leader, and a proven reformer. This scares the hell out of both the corrupt Marxist-democrats, as well the corrupt establishment Republicans. In fact, she may scare the corrupt Republicans more, because they know what she did to the Alaskan Republicans and Governor Frank Murkowski’s "Corrupt Bastards Club."

Our best advice when it comes to Sarah Palin, is to pay attention to what this magnificent woman says, and ignore the spectacle that those who don’t have America’s best interest at heart, make of themselves trying to get you to ignore her!

Constituting America: The Federalist Papers: Federalist 12

If there was but just one edition of The Federalist that Barack Obama and the rest of his Marxist fellow travelers should read, it would be Federalist 12.

Far from touting the tenets so espoused by Karl Marx, Hamilton praises capitalism, noting that Commerce will be the lifeblood of the Nation. Hamilton understood, just like most Conservatives do today, that the free flow of Commerce would not only grow the Nation, but fund government.

It’s been proven time and time again that when government gets out of the way of Commerce, and keeps taxes low, not only do American’s thrive, so does the treasury. High taxes have the opposite effect. Commerce is slowed and tax reaccepts dwindle.

Should one doubt this, look at economic growth when both Kennedy and Reagan made dramatic cuts in taxes. One can only wonder what America’s economy would look like today had the Obama regime given everyone tax holiday instead of throwing the $1 trillion "stimulus"down a bottomless pit.

Here Hamilton talks not only about how government should help promote Commerce, and ingenuity, but what the tax structure should look like. Note an income tax wasn’t on Hamilton’s mind. His scheme was to fund government through tariffs and fees.

This is a very sound system, and one based on maximizing economic growth and strength. Obviously, under this system, government has the incentives to have a very small imprint, allowing business to thrive. It’s in government’s interest not to interfere or impede Commerce.

What a concept!

Now that’s not to say there shouldn’t be sensible regulations and protections, but draconian laws do not a healthy economy make, nor do taxes that border on usury, or a perverted desire to "spread the wealth."

One should again note Hamilton’s healthy respect of those who desire to enjoy the fruits of their own labor and the sweat of their brow.

Obviously enforcing tax law was of concern, as was the distaste of using armed military to collect those taxes. Sticking with the theme of a United States as superior to separate nation states, or small confederacies of states, Hamilton speaks to the benefits of not only collecting taxes, but stopping illegal trade, and conflict arising from same.

This is a definite read for that communist who aggravates you on a regular basis with his Utopian fantasies of the glorious revolution.

Federalist No. 12

The Utility of the Union In Respect to Revenue

From the New York Packet.

Tuesday, November 27, 1787.

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

THE effects of Union upon the commercial prosperity of the States have been sufficiently delineated. Its tendency to promote the interests of revenue will be the subject of our present inquiry.

The prosperity of commerce is now perceived and acknowledged by all enlightened statesmen to be the most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth, and has accordingly become a primary object of their political cares. By multipying the means of gratification, by promoting the introduction and circulation of the precious metals, those darling objects of human avarice and enterprise, it serves to vivify and invigorate the channels of industry, and to make them flow with greater activity and copiousness. The assiduous merchant, the laborious husbandman, the active mechanic, and the industrious manufacturer,--all orders of men, look forward with eager expectation and growing alacrity to this pleasing reward of their toils. The often-agitated question between agriculture and commerce has, from indubitable experience, received a decision which has silenced the rivalship that once subsisted between them, and has proved, to the satisfaction of their friends, that their interests are intimately blended and interwoven. 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? Could that which procures a freer vent for the products of the earth, which furnishes new incitements to the cultivation of land, which is the most powerful instrument in increasing the quantity of money in a state--could that, in fine, which is the faithful handmaid of labor and industry, in every shape, fail to augment that article, which is the prolific parent of far the greatest part of the objects upon which they are exerted? It is astonishing that so simple a truth should ever have had an adversary; and it is one, among a multitude of proofs, how apt a spirit of ill-informed jealousy, or of too great abstraction and refinement, is to lead men astray from the plainest truths of reason and conviction.

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. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury. The hereditary dominions of the Emperor of Germany contain a great extent of fertile, cultivated, and populous territory, a large proportion of which is situated in mild and luxuriant climates. In some parts of this territory are to be found the best gold and silver mines in Europe. And yet, from the want of the fostering influence of commerce, that monarch can boast but slender revenues. He has several times been compelled to owe obligations to the pecuniary succors of other nations for the preservation of his essential interests, and is unable, upon the strength of his own resources, to sustain a long or continued war.

But it is not in this aspect of the subject alone that Union will be seen to conduce to the purpose of revenue. There are other points of view, in which its influence will appear more immediate and decisive. It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation. Tax laws have in vain been multiplied; new methods to enforce the collection have in vain been tried; the public expectation has been uniformly disappointed, and the treasuries of the States have remained empty. The popular system of administration inherent in the nature of popular government, coinciding with the real scarcity of money incident to a languid and mutilated state of trade, has hitherto defeated every experiment for extensive collections, and has at length taught the different legislatures the folly of attempting them.

No person acquainted with what happens in other countries will be surprised at this circumstance. In so opulent a nation as that of Britain, where direct taxes from superior wealth must be much more tolerable, and, from the vigor of the government, much more practicable, than in America, far the greatest part of the national revenue is derived from taxes of the indirect kind, from imposts, and from excises. Duties on imported articles form a large branch of this latter description.

In America, it is evident that we must a long time depend for the means of revenue chiefly on such duties. In most parts of it, excises must be confined within a narrow compass. The genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise laws. The pockets of the farmers, on the other hand, will reluctantly yield but scanty supplies, in the unwelcome shape of impositions on their houses and lands; and personal property is too precarious and invisible a fund to be laid hold of in any other way than by the inperceptible agency of taxes on consumption.

If these remarks have any foundation, that state of things which will best enable us to improve and extend so valuable a resource must be best adapted to our political welfare. And it cannot admit of a serious doubt, that this state of things must rest on the basis of a general Union. As far as this would be conducive to the interests of commerce, so far it must tend to the extension of the revenue to be drawn from that source. As far as it would contribute to rendering regulations for the collection of the duties more simple and efficacious, so far it must serve to answer the purposes of making the same rate of duties more productive, and of putting it into the power of the government to increase the rate without prejudice to trade.

The relative situation of these States; the number of rivers with which they are intersected, and of bays that wash there shores; the facility of communication in every direction; the affinity of language and manners; the familiar habits of intercourse; --all these are circumstances that would conspire to render an illicit trade between them a matter of little difficulty, and would insure frequent evasions of the commercial regulations of each other. The separate States or confederacies would be necessitated by mutual jealousy to avoid the temptations to that kind of trade by the lowness of their duties. The temper of our governments, for a long time to come, would not permit those rigorous precautions by which the European nations guard the avenues into their respective countries, as well by land as by water; and which, even there, are found insufficient obstacles to the adventurous stratagems of avarice.

In France, there is an army of patrols (as they are called) constantly employed to secure their fiscal regulations against the inroads of the dealers in contraband trade. Mr. Neckar computes the number of these patrols at upwards of twenty thousand. This shows the immense difficulty in preventing that species of traffic, where there is an inland communication, and places in a strong light the disadvantages with which the collection of duties in this country would be encumbered, if by disunion the States should be placed in a situation, with respect to each other, resembling that of France with respect to her neighbors. The arbitrary and vexatious powers with which the patrols are necessarily armed, would be intolerable in a free country.

If, on the contrary, there be but one government pervading all the States, there will be, as to the principal part of our commerce, but ONE SIDE to guard--the ATLANTIC COAST. Vessels arriving directly from foreign countries, laden with valuable cargoes, would rarely choose to hazard themselves to the complicated and critical perils which would attend attempts to unlade prior to their coming into port. They would have to dread both the dangers of the coast, and of detection, as well after as before their arrival at the places of their final destination. An ordinary degree of vigilance would be competent to the prevention of any material infractions upon the rights of the revenue. A few armed vessels, judiciously stationed at the entrances of our ports, might at a small expense be made useful sentinels of the laws. And the government having the same interest to provide against violations everywhere, the co-operation of its measures in each State would have a powerful tendency to render them effectual. Here also we should preserve by Union, an advantage which nature holds out to us, and which would be relinquished by separation. The United States lie at a great distance from Europe, and at a considerable distance from all other places with which they would have extensive connections of foreign trade. The passage from them to us, in a few hours, or in a single night, as between the coasts of France and Britain, and of other neighboring nations, would be impracticable. This is a prodigious security against a direct contraband with foreign countries; but a circuitous contraband to one State, through the medium of another, would be both easy and safe. The difference between a direct importation from abroad, and an indirect importation through the channel of a neighboring State, in small parcels, according to time and opportunity, with the additional facilities of inland communication, must be palpable to every man of discernment.

It is therefore evident, that one national government would be able, at much less expense, to extend the duties on imports, beyond comparison, further than would be practicable to the States separately, or to any partial confederacies. Hitherto, I believe, it may safely be asserted, that these duties have not upon an average exceeded in any State three per cent. In France they are estimated to be about fifteen per cent., and in Britain they exceed this proportion. [1] There seems to be nothing to hinder their being increased in this country to at least treble their present amount. The single article of ardent spirits, under federal regulation, might be made to furnish a considerable revenue. Upon a ratio to the importation into this State, the whole quantity imported into the United States may be estimated at four millions of gallons; which, at a shilling per gallon, would produce two hundred thousand pounds. That article would well bear this rate of duty; and if it should tend to diminish the consumption of it, such an effect would be equally favorable to the agriculture, to the economy, to the morals, and to the health of the society. There is, perhaps, nothing so much a subject of national extravagance as these spirits.

What will be the consequence, if we are not able to avail ourselves of the resource in question in its full extent? A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events. In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land. It has been already intimated that excises, in their true signification, are too little in unison with the feelings of the people, to admit of great use being made of that mode of taxation; nor, indeed, in the States where almost the sole employment is agriculture, are the objects proper for excise sufficiently numerous to permit very ample collections in that way. Personal estate (as has been before remarked), from the difficulty in tracing it, cannot be subjected to large contributions, by any other means than by taxes on consumption. In populous cities, it may be enough the subject of conjecture, to occasion the oppression of individuals, without much aggregate benefit to the State; but beyond these circles, it must, in a great measure, escape the eye and the hand of the tax-gatherer. As the necessities of the State, nevertheless, must be satisfied in some mode or other, the defect of other resources must throw the principal weight of public burdens on the possessors of land. And as, on the other hand, the wants of the government can never obtain an adequate supply, unless all the sources of revenue are open to its demands, the finances of the community, under such embarrassments, cannot be put into a situation consistent with its respectability or its security. Thus we shall not even have the consolations of a full treasury, to atone for the oppression of that valuable class of the citizens who are employed in the cultivation of the soil. But public and private distress will keep pace with each other in gloomy concert; and unite in deploring the infatuation of those counsels which led to disunion.


PUBLIUS.



1. If my memory be right they amount to twenty per cent.

For more on the Constitution and the Federalist Papers check out Constituting America here.

Constituting America: The Federalist Papers: Federalist 11

After discussing the dangers of disunity, the strengths of a United States, and comparing the superiority of the republican form of government to all others, in Federalist 11 Hamilton gets into more practical matters. And a few digs at the Europeans. It seems, they were a tad too arrogant for America’s taste back then as well. .

Then, as now, international trade was an important consideration. America was already an exporter, as well as an importer. So this was a real concern.

In the late 18th century, early 19th century, almost all trading was done over the waters. Even within America, the great waterways were the most efficient way of sending large amounts of freight. It’s not by accident that we call sending things somewhere "shipping" to this day.

As shipping was important, so was protecting that shipping. Many think of pirates, and they were certainly an issue. In fact, America’s first real international war was over issues with the Barbary Pirates. Our first war with radical Muslims, BTW. But shipping in general had it’s hazzards.

Hamilton points out it would be prudent for the United States, already a player on the world’s stage, to create a strong Navy.

Hamilton also speaks to the finer points trade policy, and how America’s new found strength would get established powers upset. In the late 1700's trade policy was often carried out at the end of a bayonet or the barrel of a cannon. Hamilton speaks to the fact a United States would far better meet the challenges of this.

Then as now, strong foreign trade is vital to the economic health of the nation.

Federalist No. 11

The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy

For the Independent Journal.

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

THE importance of the Union, in a commercial light, is one of those points about which there is least room to entertain a difference of opinion, and which has, in fact, commanded the most general assent of men who have any acquaintance with the subject. This applies as well to our intercourse with foreign countries as with each other.

There are appearances to authorize a supposition that the adventurous spirit, which distinguishes the commercial character of America, has already excited uneasy sensations in several of the maritime powers of Europe. They seem to be apprehensive of our too great interference in that carrying trade, which is the support of their navigation and the foundation of their naval strength. Those of them which have colonies in America look forward to what this country is capable of becoming, with painful solicitude. They foresee the dangers that may threaten their American dominions from the neighborhood of States, which have all the dispositions, and would possess all the means, requisite to the creation of a powerful marine. Impressions of this kind will naturally indicate the policy of fostering divisions among us, and of depriving us, as far as possible, of an ACTIVE COMMERCE in our own bottoms. This would answer the threefold purpose of preventing our interference in their navigation, of monopolizing the profits of our trade, and of clipping the wings by which we might soar to a dangerous greatness. Did not prudence forbid the detail, it would not be difficult to trace, by facts, the workings of this policy to the cabinets of ministers.

If we continue united, we may counteract a policy so unfriendly to our prosperity in a variety of ways. By prohibitory regulations, extending, at the same time, throughout the States, we may oblige foreign countries to bid against each other, for the privileges of our markets. This assertion will not appear chimerical to those who are able to appreciate the importance of the markets of three millions of people--increasing in rapid progression, for the most part exclusively addicted to agriculture, and likely from local circumstances to remain so--to any manufacturing nation; and the immense difference there would be to the trade and navigation of such a nation, between a direct communication in its own ships, and an indirect conveyance of its products and returns, to and from America, in the ships of another country. Suppose, for instance, we had a government in America, capable of excluding Great Britain (with whom we have at present no treaty of commerce) from all our ports; what would be the probable operation of this step upon her politics? Would it not enable us to negotiate, with the fairest prospect of success, for commercial privileges of the most valuable and extensive kind, in the dominions of that kingdom? When these questions have been asked, upon other occasions, they have received a plausible, but not a solid or satisfactory answer. It has been said that prohibitions on our part would produce no change in the system of Britain, because she could prosecute her trade with us through the medium of the Dutch, who would be her immediate customers and paymasters for those articles which were wanted for the supply of our markets. But would not her navigation be materially injured by the loss of the important advantage of being her own carrier in that trade? Would not the principal part of its profits be intercepted by the Dutch, as a compensation for their agency and risk? Would not the mere circumstance of freight occasion a considerable deduction? Would not so circuitous an intercourse facilitate the competitions of other nations, by enhancing the price of British commodities in our markets, and by transferring to other hands the management of this interesting branch of the British commerce?

A mature consideration of the objects suggested by these questions will justify a belief that the real disadvantages to Britain from such a state of things, conspiring with the pre-possessions of a great part of the nation in favor of the American trade, and with the importunities of the West India islands, would produce a relaxation in her present system, and would let us into the enjoyment of privileges in the markets of those islands elsewhere, from which our trade would derive the most substantial benefits. Such a point gained from the British government, and which could not be expected without an equivalent in exemptions and immunities in our markets, would be likely to have a correspondent effect on the conduct of other nations, who would not be inclined to see themselves altogether supplanted in our trade.

A further resource for influencing the conduct of European nations toward us, in this respect, would arise from the establishment of a federal navy. There can be no doubt that the continuance of the Union under an efficient government would put it in our power, at a period not very distant, to create a navy which, if it could not vie with those of the great maritime powers, would at least be of respectable weight if thrown into the scale of either of two contending parties. This would be more peculiarly the case in relation to operations in the West Indies. A few ships of the line, sent opportunely to the reinforcement of either side, would often be sufficient to decide the fate of a campaign, on the event of which interests of the greatest magnitude were suspended. Our position is, in this respect, a most commanding one. And if to this consideration we add that of the usefulness of supplies from this country, in the prosecution of military operations in the West Indies, it will readily be perceived that a situation so favorable would enable us to bargain with great advantage for commercial privileges. A price would be set not only upon our friendship, but upon our neutrality. By a steady adherence to the Union we may hope, erelong, to become the arbiter of Europe in America, and to be able to incline the balance of European competitions in this part of the world as our interest may dictate.

But in the reverse of this eligible situation, we shall discover that the rivalships of the parts would make them checks upon each other, and would frustrate all the tempting advantages which nature has kindly placed within our reach. In a state so insignificant our commerce would be a prey to the wanton intermeddlings of all nations at war with each other; who, having nothing to fear from us, would with little scruple or remorse, supply their wants by depredations on our property as often as it fell in their way. The rights of neutrality will only be respected when they are defended by an adequate power. A nation, despicable by its weakness, forfeits even the privilege of being neutral.

Under a vigorous national government, the natural strength and resources of the country, directed to a common interest, would baffle all the combinations of European jealousy to restrain our growth. This situation would even take away the motive to such combinations, by inducing an impracticability of success. An active commerce, an extensive navigation, and a flourishing marine would then be the offspring of moral and physical necessity. We might defy the little arts of the little politicians to control or vary the irresistible and unchangeable course of nature.

But in a state of disunion, these combinations might exist and might operate with success. It would be in the power of the maritime nations, availing themselves of our universal impotence, to prescribe the conditions of our political existence; and as they have a common interest in being our carriers, and still more in preventing our becoming theirs, they would in all probability combine to embarrass our navigation in such a manner as would in effect destroy it, and confine us to a PASSIVE COMMERCE. We should then be compelled to content ourselves with the first price of our commodities, and to see the profits of our trade snatched from us to enrich our enemies and p rsecutors. That unequaled spirit of enterprise, which signalizes the genius of the American merchants and navigators, and which is in itself an inexhaustible mine of national wealth, would be stifled and lost, and poverty and disgrace would overspread a country which, with wisdom, might make herself the admiration and envy of the world.

There are rights of great moment to the trade of America which are rights of the Union--I allude to the fisheries, to the navigation of the Western lakes, and to that of the Mississippi. The dissolution of the Confederacy would give room for delicate questions concerning the future existence of these rights; which the interest of more powerful partners would hardly fail to solve to our disadvantage. The disposition of Spain with regard to the Mississippi needs no comment. France and Britain are concerned with us in the fisheries, and view them as of the utmost moment to their navigation. They, of course, would hardly remain long indifferent to that decided mastery, of which experience has shown us to be possessed in this valuable branch of traffic, and by which we are able to undersell those nations in their own markets. What more natural than that they should be disposed to exclude from the lists such dangerous competitors?

This branch of trade ought not to be considered as a partial benefit. All the navigating States may, in different degrees, advantageously participate in it, and under circumstances of a greater extension of mercantile capital, would not be unlikely to do it. As a nursery of seamen, it now is, or when time shall have more nearly assimilated the principles of navigation in the several States, will become, a universal resource. To the establishment of a navy, it must be indispensable.

To this great national object, a NAVY, union will contribute in various ways. Every institution will grow and flourish in proportion to the quantity and extent of the means concentred towards its formation and support. A navy of the United States, as it would embrace the resources of all, is an object far less remote than a navy of any single State or partial confederacy, which would only embrace the resources of a single part. It happens, indeed, that different portions of confederated America possess each some peculiar advantage for this essential establishment. The more southern States furnish in greater abundance certain kinds of naval stores--tar, pitch, and turpentine. Their wood for the construction of ships is also of a more solid and lasting texture. The difference in the duration of the ships of which the navy might be composed, if chiefly constructed of Southern wood, would be of signal importance, either in the view of naval strength or of national economy. Some of the Southern and of the Middle States yield a greater plenty of iron, and of better quality. Seamen must chiefly be drawn from the Northern hive. The necessity of naval protection to external or maritime commerce does not require a particular elucidation, no more than the conduciveness of that species of commerce to the prosperity of a navy.

An unrestrained intercourse between the States themselves will advance the trade of each by an interchange of their respective productions, not only for the supply of reciprocal wants at home, but for exportation to foreign markets. The veins of commerce in every part will be replenished, and will acquire additional motion and vigor from a free circulation of the commodities of every part. Commercial enterprise will have much greater scope, from the diversity in the productions of different States. When the staple of one fails from a bad harvest or unproductive crop, it can call to its aid the staple of another. The variety, not less than the value, of products for exportation contributes to the activity of foreign commerce. It can be conducted upon much better terms with a large number of materials of a given value than with a small number of materials of the same value; arising from the competitions of trade and from the fluctations of markets. Particular articles may be in great demand at certain periods, and unsalable at others; but if there be a variety of articles, it can scarcely happen that they should all be at one time in the latter predicament, and on this account the operations of the merchant would be less liable to any considerable obstruction or stagnation. The speculative trader will at once perceive the force of these observations, and will acknowledge that the aggregate balance of the commerce of the United States would bid fair to be much more favorable than that of the thirteen States without union or with partial unions.

It may perhaps be replied to this, that whether the States are united or disunited, there would still be an intimate intercourse between them which would answer the same ends; this intercourse would be fettered, interrupted, and narrowed by a multiplicity of causes, which in the course of these papers have been amply detailed. A unity of commercial, as well as political, interests, can only result from a unity of government.

There are other points of view in which this subject might be placed, of a striking and animating kind. But they would lead us too far into the regions of futurity, and would involve topics not proper for a newspaper discussion. I shall briefly observe, that our situation invites and our interests prompt us to aim at an ascendant in the system of American affairs. The world may politically, as well as geographically, be divided into four parts, each having a distinct set of interests. Unhappily for the other three, Europe, by her arms and by her negotiations, by force and by fraud, has, in different degrees, extended her dominion over them all. Africa, Asia, and America, have successively felt her domination. The superiority she has long maintained has tempted her to plume herself as the Mistress of the World, and to consider the rest of mankind as created for her benefit. Men admired as profound philosophers have, in direct terms, attributed to her inhabitants a physical superiority, and have gravely asserted that all animals, and with them the human species, degenerate in America--that even dogs cease to bark after having breathed awhile in our atmosphere.[1] Facts have too long supported these arrogant pretensions of the Europeans. It belongs to us to vindicate the honor of the human race, and to teach that assuming brother, moderation. Union will enable us to do it. Disunion will will add another victim to his triumphs. Let Americans disdain to be the instruments of European greatness! Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system, superior to the control of all transatlantic force or influence, and able to dictate the terms of the connection between the old and the new world!


PUBLIUS.

1. "Recherches philosophiques sur les Americains.''

For more information, check out Constituting America here.

Constituting America: The Federalist Papers: Federalist 10

Madison takes us on a whole other path today than we have been on. Though he is still talking about the benefits of unity, and the dangers of inner strife and insurrection, in Federalist 10, Madison explains very well why a democracy is due to fail, and why the representative republican form of government is the answer.

I know we often say we live in a democracy, even those that know better are guilty, but the truth is, we do not live in a democracy, we live in a Representative Republic. History is laced with governments that have been set up as true democracies, one man...one vote. All have failed, and the end result is a strong dictatorial, command and control government. This cycle has repeated itself over and over.

It’s almost the same case with Marxism, communism, socialism: People who see that true democracies always fail, but still put forth the plans to become that kind of government are of a kindred spirit to those who think communism will work this time because THEY are the ones doing it!

You see, to the true believer, whether it be the aforementioned isms, communism, socialism, and so forth, or a democracy....the problem is not with the plan, no...the problem, in their eyes, is simply the wrong people have been in charge! These so-called intellectuals just KNOW that if they are at the helm, proven failure can be turned into the Utopian Paradise they all dream of. Such is the folly of the intellectual elites who have no practical experience in any facet of real life.

For a perfect example of this, see the complete and total failure represented by the Obama regime, and those that support it. .

Madison makes the case for the republican form of government quite well. In theory, solid statesmen, who are accountable to the people, would streamline government, and best represent the will of the people, and at least counter the dangers that occur from certain factions who would seek to oppose their will on the rest, causing much strife and even insurrection.

I know most will say, that through the lens of our current situation, the representative republican form of government has failed. Well, as the old saying goes, the republican form of government is the worst kind there is, except for all of the rest!

What has failed, and this will be hard to accept, are the people of this great Nation. That means you and I. You see, most of us get so involved in just living life, doing our own thing, that we simply don’t think about government at all, until something happens that is completely upsetting, then we stand around complaining, and well, doing little else.

I can’t tell you how many friends and acquaintances over the years have said "I don’t do politics." In fact, looking at the rather sad voting habits of Americans, or lack there of, there are a whole lot of Americans who "don’t do politics."

Now frankly, this is understandable. Politics can be quite frustrating and time consuming. It is quite easy to get caught up in it, and little else. Also, like religion, we are often timid to speak openly about politics, even with friends, because like religion, wars have been fought over political differences! Friends have ceased to be friends over heated discussions of either subject.

What happens though, is while the public is distracted with other affairs, government, even one so well designed, starts to fail us. Human nature takes over our elected representatives, and with no supervision, all sorts mayhem ensue.

This is the time to insert the reminder that our elected representatives work for us, we have a direct employer-employee relationship. We are like a major corporation, with the people being the employer, and the government being the employee. We are government’s supervisor. Anyone who has worked with a number of people knows that if the supervision is poor, and the direction is not clear, it’s very easy to have the mission stray, and for employees to spend more time working against the interests of the company, and for their own.

In our system, the people of each Congressional district serve as supervisors, managers of their elected representatives. It is their duty to keep an eye on their representative, to make sure that they are in line with not only their values, but the Constitution. While we can’t fire them on the spot when they fail, we do have a remedy, our vote.

By not doing our duty as American citizens, our government has now drifted into crisis mode. A tyrannical regime has come to power, and we have been subjected to many Intolerable Acts by our government. Such is the price we pay for not "doing politics."

Ours is an advanced form of government that requires a certain amount of effort from each of us to be at least minimally involved.

The Tea Parties are the natural consequence of our failure to do our job and supervise our government. Government has grown into an out of control monster and it will take a herculean effort to put the genie back in the bottle, so to speak.

Thankfully, as the people are waking up, and joining activist groups, like the Tea Parties, we are slowly, steadily, turning the corner. Many unworthy politicians are seeing their careers end, or about to end, as their employers are finally giving them their long overdue work review, and the results of that review show our employees have performed poorly, and some have even performed criminally.

Though Madison is selling us on the idea of the republican form of government, he is also reminding us that in order for this to work, we must do our part.

Federalist No. 10

The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection

From the New York Packet.

Friday, November 23, 1787.

Author: James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

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

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. 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. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. 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. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

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. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

Be sure to visit Constituting America for more thoughts and essays on the Constitution and The Federalist.