Sarah Palin is a strong supporter of Israel, and showed that support by wearing a pin that has both the American and Israeli flags while at Time Magazine's Most Influential Gala. This is the same pin she wore when she gave her State-of-the-Union address at the National Tea Party Convention.
Sarah has always supported Israel and had an Israeli flag in the Governor’s office.
Sarah is known for wearing pins in support of things near and dear to her heart, often wearing her Blue Star Moms pin, or something to highlight Alaska.
The definition of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC seems simply to be "an assemblage of societies,'' or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy. The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government
~Alexander Hamilton
Today brings us Federalist 9, and Hamilton, who frankly speaks in a loftier tone than I prefer, nails it all down. While still talking about the benefits of union vs the dangers of the several states going it alone, Federalist 9 is where Hamilton really starts to clarify the concept of the republican form of government.
After spending a bit of time going over the epic failure of once glowing civilizations, and how glory is fleeting, Hamilton gets right into how he and the other founders envisioned the greatest nation the world has ever known.
Hamilton goes into great detail describing the representative republican form of government and the confederacy of the several states. As we often mention in discussions nowadays concerning Tenth Amendment rights, states’ rights, the United States is exactly what it sounds like, a group of sovereign, mostly independent states, that came together, of their own free will, to form a confederation for the mutual benefit of all. The basic "strength in numbers" idea.
The idea being built on the fact that man gets all of his rights from Nature’s God, but will cede a minimal amount of control, for the benefit of civil society as a whole. Taking this further, the sovereign states agreed, in concept, to give up a small amount of power and control, to a central government, for the mutual benefit of the confederacy. In other words, the several states were still strong and had almost complete control of affairs within their own borders, so long as it didn’t violate certain basics rights of all, or adversely effect another state or the republic as a whole.
Obviously, this is important reading for our time. One of the biggest issues of our day is states’ rights, and the gradual erosion of those rights in the last century. With the advent of Marxism, "progressivism" if you will, in the early 20th century, we saw Big Government types, Statists, insist on growing the federal government at an alarming rate, and seizing power once reserved to the several states, for themselves.
This is a very dangerous situation and one our founders worried of greatly. With the election of Barack Obama, a Marxist, raised from birth by hard core anti-American communists, our founder’s greatest fears may come to pass if the Obama regime, and Marxist-progressivism is not fully abated.
Hamilton also speaks to a system of checks and balances in a way many Americans may not have considered, especially younger Americans who have no experience with a weaker federal government, one that didn’t seek to involve itself in the incredible minutia of everyday life. One that didn’t seek to control where we live, what we eat, what we drive, and so on.
We are all familiar with the concept of checks and balances as it applies to the Constitution, and the federal government. We know the three separate branches of government: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial are, at least in theory...equal.
The concept that many miss, but Hamilton speaks to here, is the strong check to power the sovereignty of the several states offer. As designed, the states were at least as strong, if not stronger than the central government. Under our system, at least as envisioned, the several states have the ability to push back against unfair and unjust power grabs. The Civil War, rightly or wrongly, was a push back against what the South saw as an encroachment of states’ rights, a violation of the Tenth Amendment.
Some would say it was push back to the extreme, and it’s hard to argue against that. But just as Jefferson wrote:... "When the people fear government, there is tyranny, and when the government fears the people, there is Freedom and Liberty"... when talking about individual Freedom and Liberty, that same concept once held true with the relations between the federal government and the several states. There existed a mutual respect for each other’s place in the grand scheme of things.
The erosion of states didn’t just start, it’s been going on for quite some time, but it is at a fever pitch now. As we have all witnessed, Barack Obama isn’t just a run of the mill Big Government Statist of the kind that sadly exist in both political parties, indeed he is a Marxist authoritarian who seeks to not only render out very Constitution invalid and unused, he is intent on building a strong, heavy handed, central command and control government that involves itself not only in the minutia of state government, but every little facet of each individual’s life. Complete and total authoritarian control. A dictatorship, no matter how you chose to "pretty it up"
We are seeing some life though. With the great constitutional usurpation, and unprecedented power grab the Obama regime just shoved down America’s throat, disguised as ,i>"health care reform" we are seeing the states stand up again.
At last count, twenty states, representing roughly 45% of the nation’s population, have filed suit against the federal government to stop the implementation of this unholy and incredibly destructive legislation. Look for more to follow.
Now let’s look to Arizona and illegal immigration. The United States is under invasion and the federal government has simply refused to protect the nation, one of the only real jobs spelled out in the Constitution. It’s not just Obama, though he is making it worse by playing to racial tensions for political gain. We haven’t had a President since Eisenhower who took illegal immigration seriously.
This is a real problem on many levels. First and foremost, these invaders are breaking the law. We are the only nation on earth without severe penalties for crossing the border illegally. Check out Mexico’s laws sometime if you want a dose of reality.
Anther issue is a human rights issue. These illegals...those who only come to work, and not commit even further crimes, are held as little more than indentured slaves. Unable to enjoy the protections offered to citizens, and legal residents, they are at the mercy of whoever employs them, and provides them with a place to live. Not a good life.
Then of course there is the crime, serious crime, that crosses the border with these invaders. We lose over 2000 a year, murdered by illegals. That’s like having 3/4 of September 11, 2001, every single year. And this doesn’t count the injuries, rapes, identity theft, and so on. Nor does it take into consideration many of the diseases once wiped out in America, these illegals, who haven’t benefitted from proper inoculations, and other preventative care, these invaders bring with them.
The most basic problem though, is for purely political reasons, government, at almost all levels, has consciously decided to ignore the Rule of Law. Once a nation loses the Rule of Law, it’s over.
With that in mind, and facing some of the most horrific aspects of illegal immigrations, Phoenix being the nation’s kidnaping capital, for instance, Arizona’s legislature passed a law, which mirror’s federal law, BTW, empowering Arizona law enforcement to do the job the federal government refuses to do, in violation of it’s constitutional duties.
Both the health care issues, as well as Arizona’s tough stance against the federal government on enforcement of the Rule of Law, are signs that the several states are becoming more aware of not only their rights, but their obligations to serve as another check and balance to an overreaching, out of control federal government.
The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
For the Independent Journal.
Author: Alexander Hamilton
To the People of the State of New York:
A FIRM Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection. It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. If they exhibit occasional calms, these only serve as short-lived contrast to the furious storms that are to succeed. If now and then intervals of felicity open to view, we behold them with a mixture of regret, arising from the reflection that the pleasing scenes before us are soon to be overwhelmed by the tempestuous waves of sedition and party rage. If momentary rays of glory break forth from the gloom, while they dazzle us with a transient and fleeting brilliancy, they at the same time admonish us to lament that the vices of government should pervert the direction and tarnish the lustre of those bright talents and exalted endowments for which the favored soils that produced them have been so justly celebrated.
From the disorders that disfigure the annals of those republics the advocates of despotism have drawn arguments, not only against the forms of republican government, but against the very principles of civil liberty. They have decried all free government as inconsistent with the order of society, and have indulged themselves in malicious exultation over its friends and partisans. Happily for mankind, stupendous fabrics reared on the basis of liberty, which have flourished for ages, have, in a few glorious instances, refuted their gloomy sophisms. And, I trust, America will be the broad and solid foundation of other edifices, not less magnificent, which will be equally permanent monuments of their errors.
But it is not to be denied that the portraits they have sketched of republican government were too just copies of the originals from which they were taken. If it had been found impracticable to have devised models of a more perfect structure, the enlightened friends to liberty would have been obliged to abandon the cause of that species of government as indefensible. The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement. The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients. The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election: these are wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress towards perfection in modern times. They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided. To this catalogue of circumstances that tend to the amelioration of popular systems of civil government, I shall venture, however novel it may appear to some, to add one more, on a principle which has been made the foundation of an objection to the new Constitution; I mean the ENLARGEMENT of the ORBIT within which such systems are to revolve, either in respect to the dimensions of a single State or to the consolidation of several smaller States into one great Confederacy. The latter is that which immediately concerns the object under consideration. It will, however, be of use to examine the principle in its application to a single State, which shall be attended to in another place.
The utility of a Confederacy, as well to suppress faction and to guard the internal tranquillity of States, as to increase their external force and security, is in reality not a new idea. It has been practiced upon in different countries and ages, and has received the sanction of the most approved writers on the subject of politics. The opponents of the plan proposed have, with great assiduity, cited and circulated the observations of Montesquieu on the necessity of a contracted territory for a republican government. But they seem not to have been apprised of the sentiments of that great man expressed in another part of his work, nor to have adverted to the consequences of the principle to which they subscribe with such ready acquiescence.
When Montesquieu recommends a small extent for republics, the standards he had in view were of dimensions far short of the limits of almost every one of these States. Neither Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, North Carolina, nor Georgia can by any means be compared with the models from which he reasoned and to which the terms of his description apply. If we therefore take his ideas on this point as the criterion of truth, we shall be driven to the alternative either of taking refuge at once in the arms of monarchy, or of splitting ourselves into an infinity of little, jealous, clashing, tumultuous commonwealths, the wretched nurseries of unceasing discord, and the miserable objects of universal pity or contempt. Some of the writers who have come forward on the other side of the question seem to have been aware of the dilemma; and have even been bold enough to hint at the division of the larger States as a desirable thing. Such an infatuated policy, such a desperate expedient, might, by the multiplication of petty offices, answer the views of men who possess not qualifications to extend their influence beyond the narrow circles of personal intrigue, but it could never promote the greatness or happiness of the people of America.
Referring the examination of the principle itself to another place, as has been already mentioned, it will be sufficient to remark here that, in the sense of the author who has been most emphatically quoted upon the occasion, it would only dictate a reduction of the SIZE of the more considerable MEMBERS of the Union, but would not militate against their being all comprehended in one confederate government. And this is the true question, in the discussion of which we are at present interested.
So far are the suggestions of Montesquieu from standing in opposition to a general Union of the States, that he explicitly treats of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC as the expedient for extending the sphere of popular government, and reconciling the advantages of monarchy with those of republicanism.
"It is very probable,'' (says he [1] ) "that mankind would have been obliged at length to live constantly under the government of a single person, had they not contrived a kind of constitution that has all the internal advantages of a republican, together with the external force of a monarchical government. I mean a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC.
"This form of government is a convention by which several smaller STATES agree to become members of a larger ONE, which they intend to form. It is a kind of assemblage of societies that constitute a new one, capable of increasing, by means of new associations, till they arrive to such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of the united body.
"A republic of this kind, able to withstand an external force, may support itself without any internal corruptions. The form of this society prevents all manner of inconveniences.
"If a single member should attempt to usurp the supreme authority, he could not be supposed to have an equal authority and credit in all the confederate states. Were he to have too great influence over one, this would alarm the rest. Were he to subdue a part, that which would still remain free might oppose him with forces independent of those which he had usurped and overpower him before he could be settled in his usurpation.
"Should a popular insurrection happen in one of the confederate states the others are able to quell it. Should abuses creep into one part, they are reformed by those that remain sound. The state may be destroyed on one side, and not on the other; the confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederates preserve their sovereignty.
"As this government is composed of small republics, it enjoys the internal happiness of each; and with respect to its external situation, it is possessed, by means of the association, of all the advantages of large monarchies.''
I have thought it proper to quote at length these interesting passages, because they contain a luminous abridgment of the principal arguments in favor of the Union, and must effectually remove the false impressions which a misapplication of other parts of the work was calculated to make. They have, at the same time, an intimate connection with the more immediate design of this paper; which is, to illustrate the tendency of the Union to repress domestic faction and insurrection.
A distinction, more subtle than accurate, has been raised between a CONFEDERACY and a CONSOLIDATION of the States. The essential characteristic of the first is said to be, the restriction of its authority to the members in their collective capacities, without reaching to the individuals of whom they are composed. It is contended that the national council ought to have no concern with any object of internal administration. An exact equality of suffrage between the members has also been insisted upon as a leading feature of a confederate government. These positions are, in the main, arbitrary; they are supported neither by principle nor precedent. It has indeed happened, that governments of this kind have generally operated in the manner which the distinction taken notice of, supposes to be inherent in their nature; but there have been in most of them extensive exceptions to the practice, which serve to prove, as far as example will go, that there is no absolute rule on the subject. And it will be clearly shown in the course of this investigation that as far as the principle contended for has prevailed, it has been the cause of incurable disorder and imbecility in the government.
The definition of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC seems simply to be "an assemblage of societies,'' or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy. The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.
In the Lycian confederacy, which consisted of twenty-three CITIES or republics, the largest were entitled to THREE votes in the COMMON COUNCIL, those of the middle class to TWO, and the smallest to ONE. The COMMON COUNCIL had the appointment of all the judges and magistrates of the respective CITIES. This was certainly the most, delicate species of interference in their internal administration; for if there be any thing that seems exclusively appropriated to the local jurisdictions, it is the appointment of their own officers. Yet Montesquieu, speaking of this association, says: "Were I to give a model of an excellent Confederate Republic, it would be that of Lycia.'' Thus we perceive that the distinctions insisted upon were not within the contemplation of this enlightened civilian; and we shall be led to conclude, that they are the novel refinements of an erroneous theory.
PUBLIUS.
1. "Spirit of Lawa,'' vol. i., book ix., chap. I.
As we read continue our amazing journey, reading the Constitution and The Federalist, it becomes quite clear that our founders were men of great wisdom and great foresight. It also becomes quite clear that the nation, and especially our so-called leaders, really need this re-introduction, this constituting of America.
Federalist 9 answers a whole lot of questions concerning how our founders looked at the balance of power in our nation and just how far we have strayed.
On Monday we will continue to explore this subject, in Federalist 10, from the perspective of James Madison. In the meantime visit the Constituting Americawebsite for more essays and information.
Regular readers know that I spent a lifetime in sales and management, which gave me quite an insight into successful leadership, and what makes a great leader. Reading Sarah Palin’s notes on the occasion of her endorsement of Carly Fiorina for the United States Senate reminded me of a great leader I had the pleasure to work with, who taught me what it took to be effective.
Roy was an incredible man. He was a real master of strategery and a solid tactician. I never saw someone who could think so fast on his feet, and manage affairs so well. He was great with people, if not a bit gruff at times, deep down, he was a real softy, but only to those who knew him best.
One thing Roy understood is that sometimes, to get the desired result, you had to shake things up. Sometimes that meant taking a decent team member, that just wasn’t getting it done, and wasn’t gonna get it done, and putting in someone that could, and would. Sure, egos would get bruised, but professionals understood, and in the end, everyone was much to the better for it.
Leaders lead, which brings me to Sarah Palin:
Let’s shake it up in California! (Updated)
I’d like to tell you about a Commonsense Conservative running for office in California this year. She grew up in a modest home with a school teacher dad, worked her way through several colleges, and then entered an arena where few women had tread. Through a combination of hard work, perseverance, and common sense, she proved the naysayers wrong to reach the top of her field, where she led with distinction – facing hard truths, making tough decisions, and showing real leadership through a rocky transition period. Where others had failed, her company had weathered the storm and settled on a stronger new foundation.
Her name is Carly Fiorina, and I’m proud to endorse her for U.S. Senate.
Carly is the Commonsense Conservative that California needs and our country could sure use in these trying times. Most importantly, she’s running for the right reasons. She has an understanding that is sorely lacking in D.C. She’s not a career politician. She’s a businesswoman who has run a major corporation. She knows how to really incentivize job creation. Her fiscal conservatism is rooted in real life experience. She knows that when government grows, the private sector shrinks under the burden of debt and deficits. We can trust Carly to do the right thing for America’s economy and to make the principled decisions she has throughout her professional career.
Please consider that Carly is the conservative who has the potential to beat California’s liberal senator, Barbara Boxer, in November. I’m a huge proponent of contested primaries, so I’m glad to see the contest in California’s GOP, but I support Carly as she fights through a tough primary against a liberal member of the GOP who seems to bear almost no difference to Boxer, one of the most leftwing members of the Senate. Carly needs our support in this crucial election year when we have a real chance of putting an end to the Pelosi/Reid "Big Government" agenda.
I hope you’ll join me in supporting Carly. Visit her website here, and follow her on Facebook and Twitter. Read up on her positions and plans to help get us on the right track.
California is still Reagan Country, and Carly promises her "Reagan Conservative" values will be put to good use for her state and for our great nation. Shaking it up in California is long overdue. Let’s help Carly do it!
- Sarah Palin
Update: I’d like to add a few things about my Carly endorsement because some reaction right out of the chute calls for more information:
Carly has been endorsed by the National Right to Life, the California Pro-Life Council, and the Susan B. Anthony List. She is pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-military, and pro-strict border security and against amnesty. She is against Obamacare and will vote to repeal it and prevent the government takeover of private companies and industries. Carly is also a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Like me, she is a member of the NRA, has a 100% NRA rating, and she and her husband are gun owners. She is pro-energy development and believes as I do in an all-of-the-above approach to energy independence. She is against cap and tax. And most importantly, Carly is the only conservative in the race who can beat Barbara Boxer. That’s no RINO. That’s a winner.
- Sarah Palin
If you notice, Sarah had to do a little bit of an update. It seems that some don’t understand why Sarah made this bold move and endorsed Carly over Chuck DeVore who some consider the "real" conservative. Though I’m in Texas, both I and my West Coast buddy Stacy Drake kind of liked Chuck DeVore.. We hoped Sarah would take a look at Chuck.
The thing is, Sarah did take a look Chuck as well as Carly, in context of the big picture. Here’s the deal, extensive polling shows that DeVore had peaked, and was backing up, losing ground, while liberal "Republican" Tom Campbell was barely edging out Carly for the nomination. Sarah looked at this and knew she had to shake things up.
Electing Tom Campbell would be like giving Barbara "Don’t Call Me Ma’am" Boxer another six years. Campbell is not simply a RINO (Republican in name only) he is, to borrow from Mark Steyn, a DIABLO (Democrat in all but name only)
He's pro-abortion, has an "F" rating from the NRA, pro-gay marriage, pro-cap and tax, and so on.Campbell has taken campaign donations from a convicted terrorist, which makes him a lot more like Barack Obama than most in the Republican Party would like! Here’s the thing that I imagine really set Sarah off though: Campbell has consistently voted against supporting Israel, and as someone who has repeatedly taken Obama to the woodshed for his personal jihad against our Jewish friends and allies, one just can’t see Sarah putting up with that in her own party.
In short, Tom Campbell is De De Scozzafava on steroids! Not exactly what our nation needs.
As for DeVore, he has his own issues,... with ethics,... and we know what Sarah thinks of unethical politicians, now don’t we! Seems that DeVore was using [taxpayer] money from his state office to pay his campaign staff. That’s a very big deal.
While we are talking about DeVore, he and his people showed their true colors today. Many of us liked the guy, but he, his staff, and supporters threw a hissy fit when Sarah announced she was going to endorse Carly. DeVore’s spokesman Joshua Trevino had this to say about his boss's failing campaign:
This grassroots movement is actually a grassroots movement, Carly Fiorina thinks she can find the sheepdog to corral the sheep. Chuck DeVore knows they’re not sheep at all. They’re Americans. And they’ll make their own decisions.
Stay classy there Josh!
This kinda reminds me of the guy who asks the most popular girl to the high school prom, gets turned down, and then decides to go key her car as revenge. Very immature.
BTW...the "sheepdog" reference comes from the infamous Demon Sheep ad attacking Tom Campbell for lying about being a fiscal Conservative:
Remember now, DeVore sought Sarah’s endorsement, which make the reaction by him and his supporters a real turn off. There’s no crying in politics Chuck!
Stacy Drake offers up her must read take on all of these developments, as a Californian, here.
The bottom line on all of this is quite simple really. Tom Campbell is unacceptable, and Chuck DeVore is simply unelectable. So unacceptable is Campbell that leaving Senator "Don’t Call Me Ma’am" in office is almost more preferable! Campbell is more dangerous than Senator Boxer. At least Boxer has never taken money from a convicted terrorist Tom Campbell has! And despite her really long list of faults, Barbara Boxer has never failed to support Israel. Tom Campbell, on the other hand, sides with the Obama regime and share’s the disdain for our friends and allies.
In short...electing Tom Campbell would be a total disaster for the nation.
Sadly, for those who support DeVore, even after he and his supporters lack of class and professionalism, all you may succeed in doing is electing Tom Campbell.
With that thought in mind, we are enthusiastically endorsing Carly Fiorina and encourage our readers to do the same. Carly was the CEO of Hewlett-Packard. She is the only one in the race who has ever had to make payroll. Not sure about anyone else, but I think we need more seasoned business leaders and a hell of a lot less trial lawyers and "constitutional law professors" in D.C. How about you?
Sarah Palin is a true leader. She has looked at things, seen what must be done, and picked a winner, someone of principle, who is herself a leader. Sarah has shaken things up for the good of the team. I bet if Roy was still with us, he’d smile in approval and say "Let’s go!"
Carly is known for her rather inventive and entertaining campaign ads, and I agree with my pal Stacy, this is one of the best campaign ads ever. Simply epic. Enjoy:
In Federalist 8, Hamilton again talks of the dangers of disunity. As it has become quite obvious, there were many who, despite having fought hard to win Freedom and Liberty, to birth a Nation, wanted to then break it all up.
Hamilton goes into greater detail in Federalist 8 than previously, even painting a more dire circumstance than John Jay.
The concerns, obviously, were those rooted in security and safety. It was of great concern that not only would the several states be wide open to invasion from foreign interlopers, but from each other as well.
As Hamilton lays it out we see the folly of new nations, and the lack of a real military apparatus, vs mature nations with seasoned armies and solid fortifications. Then, as now, having a strong, well trained, and well equipped military was one of the very best deterrents to hostilities.
Another concern, one that is most certainly with us today, is the knowledge that war, by nature, tends to give the Executive more power than the Legislature. After all, the head of state, be he the President of a Republic, or a monarch or dictator, is also the Commander-In-Chief of all forces. Having that distinction gives the Executive certain liberties to carry out his duty as C-I-C.
Hamilton foresaw a situation where a divided America, with small nation states, would be all but perpetually at war. While that is distressing enough, it would most certainly lead to an overbearing Executive, which can easily see a nation change into a dictatorship.
We have seen this all throughout history where evil men, with an unhealthy ambition for power, have been popularly elected, then once in office use circumstances to gain more Executive power, often with the blessing of the people, at first. Of course, at some point the Executive becomes so powerful that the normal checks and balances that intelligent constitutions provide, are rendered null and void, totally ineffective.
The solution, as our founders saw it, was to remain united under a solid, intelligent Constitution, that offered the people protection for their Freedom and Liberty, and by nature would serve to stop many conflicts before they started.
As we have been talking about, this sort of thing applies today, but a tad differently. The Obama regime is all about dividing the nation. Oh, Obama doesn’t want a bunch of separate nation states, in fact, just the opposite, Obama sees a time when our current Constitution will cease to exist, or be rendered so ineffective by judicial fiat that it might as well not exist.
You can read more about that coming constitutional crisis here.
Obama wants to establish a strong central command and control sort of government, a defacto dictatorship, where one party, Marxist rule, is the norm.
Obama is doing this by dividing the nation’s people against one another. Obama is using race as a great divider. Not only is he playing black against white, with the heated debate on how to stop illegal immigration, and what to do with all of the illegal invaders who are in our nation, Obama now seeks to use this debate to turn everyone against the Hispanics, even those who are Americans.
This is a very dangerous game Obama, his thug government, and those who support him are playing. While taking great pains to sew hate and discontent throughout the land, Obama is dividing America into small, easily manageable (and conquerable) groups. It is the Obama regime’s great hope that at some point racial tensions, along with all out class warfare, will descend into some sort of armed conflict between one or more, if not all of the groups, thus giving Obama an excuse to expand the power of the Executive to "regain control of the nation."
Obama, and his party are nothing short of evil. These people thirst for power and control, as well as great riches like no others in our nation’s history, and will use every excuse, every crisis, every single opportunity, to advance their cause.
Of course, they don’t want to gain power and riches through hard, productive work. No, no...Obama and his cronies seek to subjugate the American people and once conquered, simply take what they wish, and leave America a shell of what she once was. These parasites have no regard for the host whatsoever.
This is why Americans, ALL Americans, who love this great nation, and do not want to see it destroyed, need to come together and defeat this great evil that has gripped the nation. It’s time to really reflect on the wisdom of founders like Hamilton:
The Consequences of Hostilities Between the States
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, November 20, 1787.
Author: Alexander Hamilton
To the People of the State of New York:
ASSUMING it therefore as an established truth that the several States, in case of disunion, or such combinations of them as might happen to be formed out of the wreck of the general Confederacy, would be subject to those vicissitudes of peace and war, of friendship and enmity, with each other, which have fallen to the lot of all neighboring nations not united under one government, let us enter into a concise detail of some of the consequences that would attend such a situation.
War between the States, in the first period of their separate existence, would be accompanied with much greater distresses than it commonly is in those countries where regular military establishments have long obtained. The disciplined armies always kept on foot on the continent of Europe, though they bear a malignant aspect to liberty and economy, have, notwithstanding, been productive of the signal advantage of rendering sudden conquests impracticable, and of preventing that rapid desolation which used to mark the progress of war prior to their introduction. The art of fortification has contributed to the same ends. The nations of Europe are encircled with chains of fortified places, which mutually obstruct invasion. Campaigns are wasted in reducing two or three frontier garrisons, to gain admittance into an enemy's country. Similar impediments occur at every step, to exhaust the strength and delay the progress of an invader. Formerly, an invading army would penetrate into the heart of a neighboring country almost as soon as intelligence of its approach could be received; but now a comparatively small force of disciplined troops, acting on the defensive, with the aid of posts, is able to impede, and finally to frustrate, the enterprises of one much more considerable. The history of war, in that quarter of the globe, is no longer a history of nations subdued and empires overturned, but of towns taken and retaken; of battles that decide nothing; of retreats more beneficial than victories; of much effort and little acquisition.
In this country the scene would be altogether reversed. The jealousy of military establishments would postpone them as long as possible. The want of fortifications, leaving the frontiers of one state open to another, would facilitate inroads. The populous States would, with little difficulty, overrun their less populous neighbors. Conquests would be as easy to be made as difficult to be retained. War, therefore, would be desultory and predatory. PLUNDER and devastation ever march in the train of irregulars. The calamities of individuals would make the principal figure in the events which would characterize our military exploits.
This picture is not too highly wrought; though, I confess, it would not long remain a just one. Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.
The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it. [1] Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them. The weaker States or confederacies would first have recourse to them, to put themselves upon an equality with their more potent neighbors. They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.
The expedients which have been mentioned would soon give the States or confederacies that made use of them a superiority over their neighbors. Small states, or states of less natural strength, under vigorous governments, and with the assistance of disciplined armies, have often triumphed over large states, or states of greater natural strength, which have been destitute of these advantages. Neither the pride nor the safety of the more important States or confederacies would permit them long to submit to this mortifying and adventitious superiority. They would quickly resort to means similar to those by which it had been effected, to reinstate themselves in their lost pre-eminence. Thus, we should, in a little time, see established in every part of this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge of the Old World. This, at least, would be the natural course of things; and our reasonings will be the more likely to be just, in proportion as they are accommodated to this standard.
These are not vague inferences drawn from supposed or speculative defects in a Constitution, the whole power of which is lodged in the hands of a people, or their representatives and delegates, but they are solid conclusions, drawn from the natural and necessary progress of human affairs.
It may, perhaps, be asked, by way of objection to this, why did not standing armies spring up out of the contentions which so often distracted the ancient republics of Greece? Different answers, equally satisfactory, may be given to this question. The industrious habits of the people of the present day, absorbed in the pursuits of gain, and devoted to the improvements of agriculture and commerce, are incompatible with the condition of a nation of soldiers, which was the true condition of the people of those republics. The means of revenue, which have been so greatly multiplied by the increase of gold and silver and of the arts of industry, and the science of finance, which is the offspring of modern times, concurring with the habits of nations, have produced an entire revolution in the system of war, and have rendered disciplined armies, distinct from the body of the citizens, the inseparable companions of frequent hostility.
There is a wide difference, also, between military establishments in a country seldom exposed by its situation to internal invasions, and in one which is often subject to them, and always apprehensive of them. The rulers of the former can have a good pretext, if they are even so inclined, to keep on foot armies so numerous as must of necessity be maintained in the latter. These armies being, in the first case, rarely, if at all, called into activity for interior defense, the people are in no danger of being broken to military subordination. The laws are not accustomed to relaxations, in favor of military exigencies; the civil state remains in full vigor, neither corrupted, nor confounded with the principles or propensities of the other state. The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an over-match for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil, and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights. The army under such circumstances may usefully aid the magistrate to suppress a small faction, or an occasional mob, or insurrection; but it will be unable to enforce encroachments against the united efforts of the great body of the people.
In a country in the predicament last described, the contrary of all this happens. The perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense. The continual necessity for their services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. The inhabitants of territories, often the theatre of war, are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights; and by degrees the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but as their superiors. The transition from this disposition to that of considering them masters, is neither remote nor difficult; but it is very difficult to prevail upon a people under such impressions, to make a bold or effectual resistance to usurpations supported by the military power.
The kingdom of Great Britain falls within the first description. An insular situation, and a powerful marine, guarding it in a great measure against the possibility of foreign invasion, supersede the necessity of a numerous army within the kingdom. A sufficient force to make head against a sudden descent, till the militia could have time to rally and embody, is all that has been deemed requisite. No motive of national policy has demanded, nor would public opinion have tolerated, a larger number of troops upon its domestic establishment. There has been, for a long time past, little room for the operation of the other causes, which have been enumerated as the consequences of internal war. This peculiar felicity of situation has, in a great degree, contributed to preserve the liberty which that country to this day enjoys, in spite of the prevalent venality and corruption. If, on the contrary, Britain had been situated on the continent, and had been compelled, as she would have been, by that situation, to make her military establishments at home coextensive with those of the other great powers of Europe, she, like them, would in all probability be, at this day, a victim to the absolute power of a single man. 'T is possible, though not easy, that the people of that island may be enslaved from other causes; but it cannot be by the prowess of an army so inconsiderable as that which has been usually kept up within the kingdom.
If we are wise enough to preserve the Union we may for ages enjoy an advantage similar to that of an insulated situation. Europe is at a great distance from us. Her colonies in our vicinity will be likely to continue too much disproportioned in strength to be able to give us any dangerous annoyance. Extensive military establishments cannot, in this position, be necessary to our security. But if we should be disunited, and the integral parts should either remain separated, or, which is most probable, should be thrown together into two or three confederacies, we should be, in a short course of time, in the predicament of the continental powers of Europe --our liberties would be a prey to the means of defending ourselves against the ambition and jealousy of each other.
This is an idea not superficial or futile, but solid and weighty. It deserves the most serious and mature consideration of every prudent and honest man of whatever party. If such men will make a firm and solemn pause, and meditate dispassionately on the importance of this interesting idea; if they will contemplate it in all its attitudes, and trace it to all its consequences, they will not hesitate to part with trivial objections to a Constitution, the rejection of which would in all probability put a final period to the Union. The airy phantoms that flit before the distempered imaginations of some of its adversaries would quickly give place to the more substantial forms of dangers, real, certain, and formidable.
PUBLIUS.
1. This objection will be fully examined in its proper place, and it will be shown that the only natural precaution which could have been taken on this subject has been taken; and a much better one than is to be found in any constitution that has been heretofore framed in America, most of which contain no guard at all on this subject.
As always, don’t forget to visit Constituting America to read more essays on the Constitution and the Federalist Papers.
As we wrote previously, Barack Obama’s minions over at Change.org were in high dudgeon over the fact that Sarah Palin, a true environmentalist, and lover of Alaska, has a new show that will soon debut on the Discovery Networks The Learning Channel (TLC)
When we last left you, the Obama regime was shilling for the radical Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund. In fact, Texas For Sarah Palin's own Josh Painter has a brand new post that exposes that radical group, and discusses Sarah Palin's Alaska that you must read... here.
Now there is a new group that is also being promoted by the regime, a group named CREDO. CREDO is featured prominently in e-mail solicitations from Change.org.
CREDO is of a San Francisco based company formally known as Working Assets. (Ever notice how often these left wingers have to change their names and start new groups?)
CREDO (formerly Working Assets) is an American for-profit company that offers mobile and long distance phone service. Based in San Francisco, California, Working Assets has raised over $65 million for nonprofit organizations such as GreenPeace, Planned Parenthood, Democracy Now etc.
Working Assets was founded in 1985. Laura Scher is the co-founder, chairperson and CEO of CREDO. Michael Kieschnick is the co-founder and president. Its first product was the Better World Credit Card. Following telecom deregulation, it introduced Working Assets Long Distance in 1991. In 2000 it launched its mobile service under the name Working Assets Wireless.
n 2009, CREDO was recognized by the nonprofit Planning and Conservation League as the Environmental Business of the Year.
In the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, CREDO helped 2.5 million Americans register to vote. To increase voter turnout, CREDO Action launched several programs: Pollworkers for Democracy, which hired volunteers to staff polling places and ensure fair voting practices; Text Out the Vote, a Web site where you could enter your friends’ phone numbers and send them a free reminder to vote on Election Day; support for Election Day registration, which was approved in several states; an online voter-registration tool; and govote.org, another online resource where voters could look up their nearest polling place
Although the Working Assets credit card is now offered through Bank of America, the product came under criticism when it was issued through the bank MBNA, the top contributor to George W. Bush's 2000 Presidential Campaign. When asked about this, Working Assets' employees have made differing claims. In one letter, it was stated that Working Assets chose MBNA regardless of its political views and entirely for its experience and quality customer service.[4] In another letter, president Michael Kieschnick stated that Working Assets ended up under MBNA when the company purchased the credit card business of Fleet Bank, which had previously issued the card. Kieschnick said it was not Working Assets' choice to select MBNA and cannot change banks without violating its current contract. MBNA was subsequently purchased by Bank of America.
Wow...long distance services and credit cards, you know, those EVIL credit cards that charge the consumers usury rates....Hmm.
It’s interesting that the radical Marxists, who are against capitalism, sure don’t mind using it to further tyranny and oppression!
And that’s what this is, tyranny and oppression. These whack job environmental groups don’t have a clue about the environment! This is just a vehicle for them to further their Marxist agenda. If slaughtering all of the world’s wildlife at once would further their ends, they’d do it in a heartbeat, and don’t you forget it.
You can check out CREDO’s website here, and see they are the stereotypical radical leftists, almost cartoonish in their delivery of propaganda.
These groups target Sarah Palin because she makes them money, and they hate her Conservative politics. That’s the only reason her name is ever mentioned. Many other states have longstanding predator eradication policies, some more aggressive than Alaska’s, but no matter, the Marxists are united in trying to stop Sarah Palin, and her message of real hope, and American greatness, by any means possible.
To this end, we are sponsoring, through our blog, a counter petition to show our support for Sarah Palin, and Sarah Palin’s Alaska. We know this will be a show that celebrates Alaska, and America, just the type of wholesome entertainment America loves.
The petition reads as follows:
TO:
David M. Zaslav, President and CEO, Discovery Communications, Inc., One Discovery Place,Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Dear Mr. Zaslav:
As President and CEO of Discovery Communications, Inc., your good taste and sound judgment were evident in your acquisition of the contract for Governor Sarah Palin’s documentary series about her home state of Alaska. Who better to tell the story of Alaska than her most famous daughter? Sarah Palin’s captivating personality will definitely be an asset to your network as you partner with Governor Palin to showcase the majestic beauty of Alaska’s natural wonders.
I join millions of others in my anticipation of this unique and exciting series about Alaska, its history, and its natural wonders. Governor Palin’s presence alone should ensure outstanding viewer ratings.. Oprah Winfrey and FOX News can attest to that. Governor Palin’s initial appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show gave that show its highest ratings in two years. Her debut as a FOX News analyst drew more viewers than all the other cable news programs during that hour combined. Likewise, the first installment of Real American Stories drew more viewers than all her competitors combined. To put it simply, Sarah Palin is "ratings gold".
In this petition, I also want to express my concern about the mischaracterization of Governor Palin’s management of Alaska’s wildlife by extremist environmental groups.
In a 2009 letter to Governor Palin, the U. S. Sportsmen’s Association succinctly described the principles of predator management used by Governor Palin during her term in office:
"After years of research, it is recognized by practically all state and federal wildlife officials that predator management is a prerequisite for guaranteeing stable populations of prey species. Given that many Alaska residents rely on moose, caribou, and other wildlife species for food, it becomes imperative that those species not be decimated through lack of predator management. The Alaska wolf management program accomplishes this. It does so through a rigorously regulated, scientifically based system targeting only those predators in areas where wildlife populations are not able to reach adequate levels of sustainability in the program’s absence."
In her New York Times op-ed entitled "Bearing Up," Governor Palin explained how placing polar bears on the endangered species list was not good science and described the measures that her administration was using to protect wildlife.
Although politically-motivated groups are trying to smear Governor Palin concerning her stewardship of Alaska’s wildlife, the facts are contrary to their assertions.
In conclusion, I stand with USSA and likeminded groups in my support of Governor Sarah Palin and in opposition to the political attacks that have been made against her. Governor Palin has been a role model for ethical and responsible conduct throughout her political career. She has expressed and demonstrated her love of Alaska and the U. S. A. on many occasions. I look forward to what I believe will be an outstanding series about Alaska by its most noteworthy spokesperson.
We feel it’s important to stand up for real American values and if you do too, please go and sign the petition here. This is a no cost deal, and no one is going to ask you to donate anything more than the time it takes to sign your name in support of the American way of life.
You can also send Discovery an email about its programming by clicking here or call Viewer Relations at 1-859-342-8439. Let them know you suport Sarah Palin's Alaska.
A message from Fay at the Sarah Palin Information Blog, who has worked tirelessly to put all of this together:
Radical environmentalist efforts against Governor Palin are not new. We are all familiar with Ashley Judd’s propaganda against then Governor Palin’s predator control program. (See here also.) As U. S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) pointed out then, predator control is essential to ensure that there is enough caribou for Alaskans to hunt for food. Predator control was conducted responsibly and scientifically by Governor Palin’s administration.
Environmental extremists have also attacked Governor Palin over her call to "Drill Here, Drill Now!" As Governor Palin has explained on numerous occasions, energy independence is essential for national security and prosperity. In Alaska, the gas and oil industry provides a significant portion of its citizens’ income. Again, her administration responsibly monitored the oil and gas industry so that there was minimal impact on the environment.
As the fiasco in the San Joaquin valley has taught us, we have to balance the needs of human beings with our need to protect the environment. Due to the uproar of eco-terrorists over a three-inch minnow that wasn’t even indigenous to the region, that fertile valley, the bread basket of the nation and even the world, was turned into a dust bowl. Thousands lost their jobs and their livelihood before the federal government was forced to respond to citizens’ demands to turn the water that supplied the farms in the valley back on.
While we support Sarah Palin 100%, and have since the first time we learned of her, this is about a lot more than Sarah. This is about the tendencies of the radical left to try and silence everyone they disagree with. To demonize, to spread lies and hatred to further their cause.
Sarah Palin is the single most powerful threat to the Marxist agenda, and the Obama regime. Any way they can stop her, or just harass her, is fair game to them.
Mark Hendrickson writes a fascinating piece in American Thinker today called: Sarah Palin and the Elites, that helps explain why Sarah is so powerful, and strikes fear in the heart of all of those who worship Lord Obama and the Marxist ideologies he touts. You simply must read, here.
Quite simply, we stand by Sarah Palin and hope you do too, and will show it by signing the petition here.
Let me leave you on a better note with this Karen Allen video that simply says "If you don’t like Sarah Palin’s Alaska...Then it’s Time For You To Go!"
Federalist 7 is a continuation on the theme of unity vs the break up of the nation into individual nation states, or groups of such. It’s always striking to me, that after a hard won Independence, so many of the states actually wanted to free themselves from the ties that bound them into battle.
Here Hamilton discusses some of the very real issues faced by the several states, and the already brewing conflicts between some. Though in a different context, it’s interesting to see that huge debt, and how to pay for it, played a large role in all of this.
It’s a real testament to the men who founded our nation, and wrote our truly unique Constitution, that in the days before real mass communication they were able to bring such a divided nation together. These were true leaders.
It’s notable today how the Obama regime is doing the exact opposite, with the benefit of a pliant media. Obama and his media partners are using the power of communication to divide our nation, to start conflicts between many groups, to drive a wedge between Americans.
As both Hamilton and Jay extensively warn, a divided people are subject to great harm. Obama and his gangster government know this as well. It’s why he and his people seemingly work overtime at sowing the seeds of hatred between many different groups. He is masterfully pitting American against American at the very time we should all be coming together and be stronger than ever. This is an incredibly evil proposition.
Of course, should all Americans come together again, as we once were, and speak in one voice, the Obama regime will be no more. This is why we must find a way to put petty grievances on hold, as difficult as that may be, and unite against the enemies of Freedom and Liberty, before it is too late.
The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States
For the Independent Journal.
Author: Alexander Hamilton
To the People of the State of New York:
IT IS sometimes asked, with an air of seeming triumph, what inducements could the States have, if disunited, to make war upon each other? It would be a full answer to this question to say--precisely the same inducements which have, at different times, deluged in blood all the nations in the world. But, unfortunately for us, the question admits of a more particular answer. There are causes of differences within our immediate contemplation, of the tendency of which, even under the restraints of a federal constitution, we have had sufficient experience to enable us to form a judgment of what might be expected if those restraints were removed.
Territorial disputes have at all times been found one of the most fertile sources of hostility among nations. Perhaps the greatest proportion of wars that have desolated the earth have sprung from this origin. This cause would exist among us in full force. We have a vast tract of unsettled territory within the boundaries of the United States. There still are discordant and undecided claims between several of them, and the dissolution of the Union would lay a foundation for similar claims between them all. It is well known that they have heretofore had serious and animated discussion concerning the rights to the lands which were ungranted at the time of the Revolution, and which usually went under the name of crown lands. The States within the limits of whose colonial governments they were comprised have claimed them as their property, the others have contended that the rights of the crown in this article devolved upon the Union; especially as to all that part of the Western territory which, either by actual possession, or through the submission of the Indian proprietors, was subjected to the jurisdiction of the king of Great Britain, till it was relinquished in the treaty of peace. This, it has been said, was at all events an acquisition to the Confederacy by compact with a foreign power. It has been the prudent policy of Congress to appease this controversy, by prevailing upon the States to make cessions to the United States for the benefit of the whole. This has been so far accomplished as, under a continuation of the Union, to afford a decided prospect of an amicable termination of the dispute. A dismemberment of the Confederacy, however, would revive this dispute, and would create others on the same subject. At present, a large part of the vacant Western territory is, by cession at least, if not by any anterior right, the common property of the Union. If that were at an end, the States which made the cession, on a principle of federal compromise, would be apt when the motive of the grant had ceased, to reclaim the lands as a reversion. The other States would no doubt insist on a proportion, by right of representation. Their argument would be, that a grant, once made, could not be revoked; and that the justice of participating in territory acquired or secured by the joint efforts of the Confederacy, remained undiminished. If, contrary to probability, it should be admitted by all the States, that each had a right to a share of this common stock, there would still be a difficulty to be surmounted, as to a proper rule of apportionment. Different principles would be set up by different States for this purpose; and as they would affect the opposite interests of the parties, they might not easily be susceptible of a pacific adjustment.
In the wide field of Western territory, therefore, we perceive an ample theatre for hostile pretensions, without any umpire or common judge to interpose between the contending parties. To reason from the past to the future, we shall have good ground to apprehend, that the sword would sometimes be appealed to as the arbiter of their differences. The circumstances of the dispute between Connecticut and Pennsylvania, respecting the land at Wyoming, admonish us not to be sanguine in expecting an easy accommodation of such differences. The articles of confederation obliged the parties to submit the matter to the decision of a federal court. The submission was made, and the court decided in favor of Pennsylvania. But Connecticut gave strong indications of dissatisfaction with that determination; nor did she appear to be entirely resigned to it, till, by negotiation and management, something like an equivalent was found for the loss she supposed herself to have sustained. Nothing here said is intended to convey the slightest censure on the conduct of that State. She no doubt sincerely believed herself to have been injured by the decision; and States, like individuals, acquiesce with great reluctance in determinations to their disadvantage.
Those who had an opportunity of seeing the inside of the transactions which attended the progress of the controversy between this State and the district of Vermont, can vouch the opposition we experienced, as well from States not interested as from those which were interested in the claim; and can attest the danger to which the peace of the Confederacy might have been exposed, had this State attempted to assert its rights by force. Two motives preponderated in that opposition: one, a jealousy entertained of our future power; and the other, the interest of certain individuals of influence in the neighboring States, who had obtained grants of lands under the actual government of that district. Even the States which brought forward claims, in contradiction to ours, seemed more solicitous to dismember this State, than to establish their own pretensions. These were New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. New Jersey and Rhode Island, upon all occasions, discovered a warm zeal for the independence of Vermont; and Maryland, till alarmed by the appearance of a connection between Canada and that State, entered deeply into the same views. These being small States, saw with an unfriendly eye the perspective of our growing greatness. In a review of these transactions we may trace some of the causes which would be likely to embroil the States with each other, if it should be their unpropitious destiny to become disunited.
The competitions of commerce would be another fruitful source of contention. The States less favorably circumstanced would be desirous of escaping from the disadvantages of local situation, and of sharing in the advantages of their more fortunate neighbors. Each State, or separate confederacy, would pursue a system of commercial policy peculiar to itself. This would occasion distinctions, preferences, and exclusions, which would beget discontent. The habits of intercourse, on the basis of equal privileges, to which we have been accustomed since the earliest settlement of the country, would give a keener edge to those causes of discontent than they would naturally have independent of this circumstance. WE SHOULD BE READY TO DENOMINATE INJURIES THOSE THINGS WHICH WERE IN REALITY THE JUSTIFIABLE ACTS OF INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGNTIES CONSULTING A DISTINCT INTEREST. The spirit of enterprise, which characterizes the commercial part of America, has left no occasion of displaying itself unimproved. It is not at all probable that this unbridled spirit would pay much respect to those regulations of trade by which particular States might endeavor to secure exclusive benefits to their own citizens. The infractions of these regulations, on one side, the efforts to prevent and repel them, on the other, would naturally lead to outrages, and these to reprisals and wars.
The opportunities which some States would have of rendering others tributary to them by commercial regulations would be impatiently submitted to by the tributary States. The relative situation of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey would afford an example of this kind. New York, from the necessities of revenue, must lay duties on her importations. A great part of these duties must be paid by the inhabitants of the two other States in the capacity of consumers of what we import. New York would neither be willing nor able to forego this advantage. Her citizens would not consent that a duty paid by them should be remitted in favor of the citizens of her neighbors; nor would it be practicable, if there were not this impediment in the way, to distinguish the customers in our own markets. Would Connecticut and New Jersey long submit to be taxed by New York for her exclusive benefit? Should we be long permitted to remain in the quiet and undisturbed enjoyment of a metropolis, from the possession of which we derived an advantage so odious to our neighbors, and, in their opinion, so oppressive? Should we be able to preserve it against the incumbent weight of Connecticut on the one side, and the co-operating pressure of New Jersey on the other? These are questions that temerity alone will answer in the affirmative.
The public debt of the Union would be a further cause of collision between the separate States or confederacies. The apportionment, in the first instance, and the progressive extinguishment afterward, would be alike productive of ill-humor and animosity. How would it be possible to agree upon a rule of apportionment satisfactory to all? There is scarcely any that can be proposed which is entirely free from real objections. These, as usual, would be exaggerated by the adverse interest of the parties. There are even dissimilar views among the States as to the general principle of discharging the public debt. Some of them, either less impressed with the importance of national credit, or because their citizens have little, if any, immediate interest in the question, feel an indifference, if not a repugnance, to the payment of the domestic debt at any rate. These would be inclined to magnify the difficulties of a distribution. Others of them, a numerous body of whose citizens are creditors to the public beyond proportion of the State in the total amount of the national debt, would be strenuous for some equitable and effective provision. The procrastinations of the former would excite the resentments of the latter. The settlement of a rule would, in the meantime, be postponed by real differences of opinion and affected delays. The citizens of the States interested would clamour; foreign powers would urge for the satisfaction of their just demands, and the peace of the States would be hazarded to the double contingency of external invasion and internal contention.
Suppose the difficulties of agreeing upon a rule surmounted, and the apportionment made. Still there is great room to suppose that the rule agreed upon would, upon experiment, be found to bear harder upon some States than upon others. Those which were sufferers by it would naturally seek for a mitigation of the burden. The others would as naturally be disinclined to a revision, which was likely to end in an increase of their own incumbrances. Their refusal would be too plausible a pretext to the complaining States to withhold their contributions, not to be embraced with avidity; and the non-compliance of these States with their engagements would be a ground of bitter discussion and altercation. If even the rule adopted should in practice justify the equality of its principle, still delinquencies in payments on the part of some of the States would result from a diversity of other causes--the real deficiency of resources; the mismanagement of their finances; accidental disorders in the management of the government; and, in addition to the rest, the reluctance with which men commonly part with money for purposes that have outlived the exigencies which produced them, and interfere with the supply of immediate wants. Delinquencies, from whatever causes, would be productive of complaints, recriminations, and quarrels. There is, perhaps, nothing more likely to disturb the tranquillity of nations than their being bound to mutual contributions for any common object that does not yield an equal and coincident benefit. For it is an observation, as true as it is trite, that there is nothing men differ so readily about as the payment of money.
Laws in violation of private contracts, as they amount to aggressions on the rights of those States whose citizens are injured by them, may be considered as another probable source of hostility. We are not authorized to expect that a more liberal or more equitable spirit would preside over the legislations of the individual States hereafter, if unrestrained by any additional checks, than we have heretofore seen in too many instances disgracing their several codes. We have observed the disposition to retaliation excited in Connecticut in consequence of the enormities perpetrated by the Legislature of Rhode Island; and we reasonably infer that, in similar cases, under other circumstances, a war, not of PARCHMENT, but of the sword, would chastise such atrocious breaches of moral obligation and social justice.
The probability of incompatible alliances between the different States or confederacies and different foreign nations, and the effects of this situation upon the peace of the whole, have been sufficiently unfolded in some preceding papers. From the view they have exhibited of this part of the subject, this conclusion is to be drawn, that America, if not connected at all, or only by the feeble tie of a simple league, offensive and defensive, would, by the operation of such jarring alliances, be gradually entangled in all the pernicious labyrinths of European politics and wars; and by the destructive contentions of the parts into which she was divided, would be likely to become a prey to the artifices and machinations of powers equally the enemies of them all. Divide et impera [1] must be the motto of every nation that either hates or fears us. [2]
PUBLIUS.
1. Divide and command.
2. In order that the whole subject of these papers may as soon as possible be laid before the public, it is proposed to publish them four times a week--on Tuesday in the New York Packet and on Thursday in the Daily Advertiser.
As always, you can find more information, and great discussion at Constituting America’s website here.
Sarah Palin looked absolutely stunning as she, Todd, and daughter Piper walked the red carpet at Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People gala event.
Sarah was chosen one of the world’s most influential leaders. You can read more here.
Below Sarah is seen giving a shout out to the troops, something she does any time she makes remarks to a crowd.
We love Sarah Palin because she is a strong decisive leader, and just the person this nation needs if we are to turn things around, but as we say in Texas, she cleans up well too!
Sarah is a true world leader, destined for greatness, and she was simply radiating with poise and confidence. She is truly the brightest star, the North Star, wherever she appears.
Fox 5 New York has coverage of the event:
Red carpet photos courtesy of Getty Images, you can view more here.
