Energy and stability have been the greatest questions in government since the ancients first developed the polis. Prior to the United States, no country made better efforts to perfect the art of separation of powers than England has made. Publius describes in Federalist 37 the need for stability and energy in the new government, while at the same time protecting the liberty of the people and the republican way of life. The Constitution of 1787 achieves these aims through a separation of powers between the three branches of the Federal government and the specific make up of the departments.

In order to understand Publius’ argument better, it would be best to take his argument in Federalist 37 first, followed by his discussion of the relationship between the three branches of government. Lastly I will view his discussion of the specific make up of the various branches of the United States Government.

Publius argues for the necessity of a separation of powers in the new government in order to provide for the necessary stability and energy in government while protecting liberty and republicanism. In order to do this he argues that there most be present a separation of powers between the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of government. Furthermore, there must be a separation of powers between that of the States and Federal governments. Publius says, “Among the difficulties encountered by the convention, a very important one must have lain in combining the requisite stability and energy in government with the inviolable attention due to liberty and to republican form.”[1] The first attempt at creating a republic with the Articles of Confederation failed due to a lack of energy and stability within the government, thus it was pertinent to create in the new government fixes for these problems. Publius then goes on to explain:

The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on one side not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those intrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people by a short duration of their appointments; and that even this short period the trust should be placed not in a few, but in a number of hands.[2]

This is the genius of the new Constitution according to Publius, it has attained the short periods of appointment and dividing the government among many hands. In order that the liberty of the people is not offended, they must remain the source of power for the government.

Yet this is not enough, in order to understand how this present in the Constitution Publius explains further in papers 47-51. In the first of these papers, Publius addresses the allegations by opponents of the proposed plan that it lacks a separation of powers. Publius explains Montesquieu’s argument for the separation of powers by saying, “he did not mean that these departments ought to have no partial agency in, or no control over, the acts of each other.”[3] The magistrate must have the authority to not only enforce the laws passed by the legislative, but also to veto laws that violate the Constitution, and the judicial cannot create laws but can advise the legislative.[4] Publius then goes on to demonstrate that the various Constitutions of the states provide for more blending of the branches of government than the proposed Federal Constitution.

And then in Federalist 48 Publius describes how the Federal Constitution provides a defense through a moderate blend of the branches of government. At first he argues:

But in a representative republic where the executive magistracy is carefully limited, both in the extent and duration of his power, and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired by a supposed influence over the people with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions by means which reason prescribes; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people out to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.[5]

So in order to prevent the encroachments of the legislative on the rights and liberties of the people, the executive and judicial branches must have authority to reign in the power of the legislative. The legislative is also apt to encroach on the power and freedom of the other branches through pay[6], and thus they must be limited on how they are able to alter the pay of these other branches. Publius provides examples of Virginia and Pennsylvania where the powers of the legislative were not protected against and the judicial and executive branches were usurped by the authority of the legislative. Having demonstrated the dangers of allowing unbridled power to exist within the legislative branch, Publius goes on to explain how it might be possible to prevent the encroachments of one branch on the power of another.

Federalist 49 provides for this explanation and Publius defines that the people alone are the source of charter for the Constitution and its parts. Thus the people alone should be consulted when the powers of the Constitution are in question as to demolishing them, or creating a new power.[7] Appeals to the people are necessary in order to prevent the encroachments of power by the various branches. Yet frequent appeals are insufficient in protecting the freedom of the society. Not only this but it is impossible, as Publius explains, “The members of the executive and judiciary departments are few in number, and can be personally known to a small part only of the people.”[8] Yet the legislative is many in number and can be known by a larger number of the people.[9] Thus the legislative would be most likely to take advantage of the appeals from the people and thus encroach on the various powers of the other branches. As such frequent appeals of the people could turn out to be bad for the stability, energy and liberty of the society as the legislative might take their appeals as a mandate. And so how this can be moderated is discussed next by Publius.

Publius states at the beginning of Federalist 50, “It may be contended, perhaps, that instead of occasional appeals to the people, which are liable to the objections urged against them, periodical appeals are proper…”[10] In order to achieve this, Publius argues that a fixed period for appeals to the people could be detrimental to the purpose of those appeals. If they are too close together Publius argues, “the measures to be reviewed and rectified will have been of recent date, and will be connected with all the circumstances which tend to vitiate and pervert the result of occasional revisions.”[11] Yet by the same token, if they are too far apart then the people are likely not to know each other and to be unaware of the circumstances which lead to the need for revisions. [12] To demonstrate his point, Publius once again looks to the states for an example. He tells of how in Pennsylvania there had been a meeting of censorial council to remedy the defects of their Constitution. He elucidates however that the members of the council were prominent citizens who were members of the parties within the state. Secondly, some of the members of the council had served in the legislative and executive departments. Third, the proceedings of the council were disrupted by the factionalism of the members themselves. And finally, the council either did not understand the limits placed on the legislative and executive, or the legislative completely ignored the changes made by the censorial council.[13] Publius demonstrates properly the difficulty of having occasional or frequent appeals to the people for the remedy of the defects for the Constitution.

And so Publius goes on to discuss in Federalist 51 the structure of the government in regards to checks and balances. He states, “it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others.”[14] The importance of each department having its own will is demonstrated in the preceding papers, where Publius demonstrates the likely chances of an encroachment and usurpation by the legislative. In order to achieve this, Publius also states, “It is equally evident that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others for the emoluments annexed to their offices.”[15] Thus the departments must have a will of their own and should not be made dependent on the other departments for their pay. But at the same time Publius argues that the members of the various departments must be given the constitutional means and personal motives to protect against the encroachment of another department on their own.[16] Publius argues, “The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It must be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.”[17] However, Publius also reminds the reader that the legislative must be predominant in republics. In order to properly control the legislative against usurpation Publius argues:

The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.[18]

By dividing the authority of the legislative, a republic is capable of controlling the growth of power and influence of the legislative. Yet this is not enough, as Publius points out it is important in a “compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments.”[19] By dividing the legislative, you weaken its ability to encroach on the authority of the other branches. But by dividing the government into two different governments and allotting them different powers a republic can prevent the creation of a tyranny.

However, one question still remains and that is how the different bodies of government are erected for the purposes presented in Federalist 51. The various branches must be provided with different powers so that no one branch can consolidate that power. The branches must also have varying degrees of separation from the people, so that the passions of the majority cannot rule in society. In regards to the legislative branch, the branch should be split into two distinct houses with one having more of a dependence and response to the people than the other. As the legislative branch is closest to the people, and thus lays one of legislative threats, it is proper that it be divided so as to limit this closeness with the people. The first branch of the legislative Publius discusses is thus the House of Representatives, which is designed to be the department most dependent on the people. Publius describes, “As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people.”[20] The House of Representatives will only share in the legislative authority of the government and will be able to respond to the passions of the people while the upper house will be able to filter out the reason. This great authority constitutes a need for a shorter duration of power as Publius states, “It is a received and well-founded maxim that where no other circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the great out to be its duration…”[21] Further, the House of Representatives will be watched not only by the people through its direct dependence on them, but also by the collateral branch of the legislative.

Next Publius discusses the Senate, which serves as the connection between the States and the Federal government as directed by the un-amended Constitution.  On this Publius states, “It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.”[22] So that the States retain some type of authority under the new Constitution, it is important that they be given the authority to appoint the members of the Senate. The advantage of this stands that now law cannot be passed without the consent of both the people and the States.[23] And it also serves as a way to prevent members of the legislative body from forgetting their constituents by requiring the laws to be passed by both distinct bodies. Publius goes on to say:

The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by the factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions.[24]

The Senate’s mutability is important as well, so that the members restrain their passions and tyrannical nature. By having the Senate elected by the States, the States have their own elections for government offices. By changing the government representatives in the States, the Senate will be apt to change and thus opinions will be changed. Their length of office will allow the Senate the opportunity to learn the laws of the nation as well, and so that they are not constantly changing and that the opinions and measures remain some what consistent.[25] The importance of the Senate within the make up of checks and balances and separation of powers is clear. It serves as a check on the passions of the people, while balancing the representation of the States within the Federal government. Further the two branches of the legislative provide for stability and energy in the new government by removing the passions of the people and allowing for competition within the branches.

Thus next Publius discusses the executive branch, by far the most controversial of the day and most in need of defense by Publius. Publius discusses the mode of electing the President in Federalist 68. As with the legislative, the mode of electing the President must have a way of preventing the passions of the majority from ruling. Thus the Electoral College was devised as a way of preventing the encroachments of the people’s passions from entering into the election of the President. Publius describes, “It was equally desirable that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation.”[26] By doing this the Electoral College is made up of a small number of individuals so that deliberation is permitted in the election of the new President. Publius says, “This process of election affords a moral certainty that the office of the President will seldom fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”[27] As for the proper place of the executive in the stability and energy of government, he is of the most importance. As Publius says, “A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory must be, in practice, a bad government.”[28] The executive must be strong and energetic in order to properly execute the laws he is charged to enforce. Publius calls “united; duration; an adequate provision for its support; and competent powers”[29] to be what constitutes an energetic executive. Energy is found in unity as in a single person the powers of the executive can be carried out quickly without delay. If the executive power were divided among more than one person, it would be subject to deliberation which will prevent an energetic executive. [30] Likewise, the President’s tenure of office is important for his energy. The duration of office is also an important element in the stability of the executive. If he stays too long, then he is apt to be too firm and possibly encroach on the powers of the legislative. Yet if he is tenure is too short then he is apt to fall prey to the legislative.[31] Shortness in the tenure of office is also likely to prevent the interest of the executive from performing his duties. This is also the argument used by Publius in Federalist 72 in regards to the reelection of an executive; by allowing him to run for reelection, he will watch how he acts in office so that the people look upon him favorably.[32] These are the aspects which allow for an energetic and stable executive, without which the government as a whole would lack stability and energy.

Lastly, Publius discusses the importance of the Judiciary in the make up of the new Constitution. Publius calls the Federal judiciary, “the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.”[33] The purpose of the Federal judiciary he proposes is to prevent “the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body.”[34] Publius counters the fears of judicial usurpation by asserting that the Federal judiciary will be the weakest of all the branches as it lacks power over the purse and sword. Publius further argues:

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.[35]

The Judicial branch will have no authority over the purse or over the sword, but instead only over judgment.[36] It will thus be able to prevent against legislative and executive encroachments by striking down laws which are contrary to the Constitution and the laws and treaties of the United States. The separation of the judicial from the legislative is also important so as to allow the judges to exercise their judgment without fear of reprisal by the legislative branch. Thus, the salaries of the judges cannot be lowered so as not to influence their opinions.[37] Their tenure of office also allows for freedom of judgment in judicial matters. Their appointment is for during good behavior, which prevents their judgment from being dependent on reelection, which may have a negative effect on their opinions. Thus through the judicial department is called upon to be safeguard against the encroachments of the representative and executive bodies. It will further only have the power of judgment, not the power of the purse or the sword. And it will further lack dependence on the legislative branch because their salaries cannot be lowered and their tenure of office is during good behavior, not apt to reelection.

The Federalist lays out a discussion of how energy and stability will be present in the new Constitution without violating the principles of republican government and the liberties of the people. As such, the basic necessity to ensure this requires a separation of powers. Publius describes how the various departments of the new government participate and uphold the principles of the separation of powers. He further demonstrates how the people and States partake in the controlling of the new government by their participation in the election of the houses of the legislative. Publius properly upholds his argument in Federalist 37 in his discussion of the following papers.

[2] Federalist 37, 195

[3] Federalist 47, 270

[4] Federalist 47, 271

[5] Federalist 48, 277

[6] “as the legislative department alone has access to the pockets of the people…”Federalist 48, 278

[7] “As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power…” Federalist 49, 281-282

[8] Federalist 49, 284

[9] “The members of the legislative department…” Federalist 49, 284

[10] Federalist 50, 285

[11] Federalist 50, 286

[12] “If the periods be distant from each other…” Federalist 50, 286

[13] “Pennsylvania in 1783 and 1784, was, as we have seen….” Federalist 50, 286

[14] Federalist 51, 289

[15] Federalist 51, 289

[16] “But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several…” Federalist 51, 289

[17] Federalist 51, 290

[18] Federalist 51, 290

[19] Federalist 51, 291

[20] Federalist 52, 295

[21] Federalist 52, 298

[22] Federalist 62, 345

[23] Federalist 62, 346

[24] Federalist 62, 347

[25] “The mutability in the public councils…” Federalist 62, 348

[26] Federalist 68, 380

[27] Federalist 68, 382

[28] Federalist 70, 391

[29] Federalist 70, 392

[30] Federalist 70, 392

[31] “Duration in office has been mentioned…”Federalist 71, 399

[32] “The first is necessary to give the officer himself….” Federalist 72, 404

[33] Federalist 78, 433

[34] Federalist 78, 433

[35] Federalist 78, 433

[36] Federalist 78, 433

[37] Federalist 79, 441

Argument taken from the Federalist Papers, along with certain questions and paraphrases.

Quote from Stephen Hopkins found in American Political Writings of the Founding Era, volume 1.

One of the fundamental causes of the Constitutional convention was the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation from reigning in the power of the states.  The primary goal of the United States Constitution is to control the passions of the people, specifically in regards to situations that arise causing an outburst of a single opinion among the people (i.e. during the period of Confederation, the people of the various states were able to convince their state legislatures to make laws affecting contracts, effectively retarding the power of contracts between persons.) Our Constitution does this first be erecting a Republican government.

Our Republican government, “guard[s] one part of the society against the injustice of the other party.” It is not be to implied that our Federal government is beyond injustice, however history has shown that the States are more likely to be unjust.  The Constitution of the United States, therefore, creates to opposing governments; one Federal and the other State. The Federal government is divided into three branches, with the most powerful being divided into two. The States are divided into three branches, and in most cases the most power being divided into two houses. The State governments also share their power with the local community governments. This is all in an attempt to curtail the possibility of an unjust government. It is also an attempt to curtail the tyranny of the people.

Through the style of our republican government, we are able to create barriers to protect against an unjust ruler. The second way our Republican government protects against the infringements of persons, and State and the Federal governments is through the size of our Republic. In history there has never been a Republic the size of the United States. A severe defect in the State governments, which necessitate the Federal government as a protector, is the closeness of the people to their legislatures. The State governments are too unstable because of how close the people are to their government. In order to keep their job, State legislatures act according to the demands of their constituents rather than according to the principles of justice.

The rule of factions is what has brought down republics throughout history and is what dismantled the American Confederacy. The problem of faction is the main focus of the American Constitution. In order to curtail factions there must be barriers placed to prevent their power from infiltrating the chambers of government. The first step to achieving this has been in the creation of two governments: State and Federal. The second step has been in the creation of an extended Republic, which allows for a multitude of opinions. This is achieved through the House of Representatives, which has traditionally (up until the passage of the 17th Amendment) been the direct representative of the people to the National legislature. They serve a short two year term and are eligible for reelection infinite times. All laws must be passed by them and by the Senate, which is indirectly elected by the people through the State legislatures (until the 17th amendment was passed.) Faction is dismantled in the chambers of our Congress as the multitude of opinions are presented by the House of Representatives and are filtered through the Senators who are further away from the influences of the passions of the people.

This has been dismantled through the adoption of direct election of Senators, but can be restored through the repeal of the same. The individual States are unable to protect against minority and majority factions, which make them the least able to protect the rights and liberties of the people. As was evident in the period leading up to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the States were impotent in protecting justice in particular regards to contracts. The people held too much sway over their elected officials, resulting in the harming of the rights of the minority. Only through a Union, with a Federal government at the head, of the States can the defects of the State constitutions be repaired.

The rights of minority interests in the Federal government are upheld along side those interests of others. By extending the Republic from sea to sea, we have achieved in making all opinions and interests minority and only those that obtain a majority of proponents are made law. The aim of the Federal government is not to create a minority rule in the United States, but rather to represent only those interests shared by the majority of persons. It is left to the States, as small Republics, to represent the interests of the minority. Within small Republics minority factions are able to wield some power within the government. It is the main objective of the Federal government to entertain the interests of all parties, and it is given to the States to entertain the interests of their citizens.  By entertaining all interests, the Federal government protects the rights of minorities by permitting them to exist whereas without the Federal government there is a greater chance that the minority opinions will not be heard. Which is why during the periods of Confederation, individuals unable to pay their debts and uphold their contracts were able to persuade their State legislature to nullify their contract and harming a minority party.

A third argument against secession will be brought forth next. I close with the words of Stephen Hopkins, “These, with all other matters of a general nature, it is absolutely necessary should have a general power to direct them, some supreme and overruling authority with power to make laws and form regulations for the good of all, and to compel their execution and observation.”

As the American economy continues to slip amid failed attempts by our Federal government to inject trillions of dollars into the country, President Obama and wife Michelle will be flying to England for the G20 summit scheduled at the beginning of April. President Obama scheduled a private meeting with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of England. While not an official state visit to England, Obama believes that it is proper for him and the Queen to get to know each other.

Among topics planned for discussion between the Queen and President is the possibility of England retaking control over her former crown jewel colony, the United States. While the White House has remained silent on this issue, it seems clear that President Obama has come to grips with his failure as President of the United States. Unable to stop the bleeding economy, Obama finally is willing to admit he was not the right man for the job.

Further complications are that President Obama has lied to Americans about pulling troops out of Iraq in a timely manner. It was announced that the President intends to have all but roughly 50,000 troops pulled from Iraq over the next several months. Liberals across the country, and in the U.S. Congress, are irate that the President has turned out to be like every other man who ran for the nation’s highest office. The final death knell to his administration seems to have been his failure to remove all earmarks from legislation. In February the U.S. Congress passed a $700 Billion stimulus package that was deemed to be nothing more than earmarks; President Obama subsequently signed the bill into law.

In addition to failed campaign promises, President Obama is faced with the continued failure of America’s car companies, specifically GM. It has been speculated for months that GM will be forced to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Like Herbert Hoover, who was President during the stock market crash of 1929, President Obama is faced in his young presidency with absolute failure. While not completely his fault, President Obama has called for a socialization of the medical community and partial socialization of the economy, which have both caused fear and panic to drive the stock market to all time lows. President Obama inherited a terrific mess and has made it worse.

In light of these problems, the President has decided he is unfit for command of our country and instead of handing the reigns over to his incompetent Vice President it is best to simply surrender the nation to England. More information concerning the alleged hand over will be provided as it becomes available.

Until then, it is best if we all practice a new phrase: God Save the Queen.

Quotes taken from The Federalist Papers and Samuel Osgood’s Letter to John Adams.

In recent weeks various state governments have passed legislation to the effect that should the Federal government over extend the authority vested in it by the U.S. Constitution, that the states shall consider the Constitution null and void. Texas Representative Leo Berman filled HCR 66 on February 23, 2009. This bill states:

Memorializing Congress in defense of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, affirming the right of states to nullify acts of Congress, executive orders, and judicial orders, and asserting that any act, executive order, or judicial order that assumes a power not delegated to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution and which diminishes the liberty of any state or citizen shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution.

This bill, in effect, would forcefully remove the state of Texas, and all its citizens, from Union with the United States of America.

The necessity of the Union can hardly be denied by those who are not self interested. The history of Europe demonstrates the hazards of disunion and should the United States be dissolved we can expect a similar fate. Men by their very nature require political union. Our forefathers understood the principle that necessitated our unity after our separation from England in 1776. Under the Articles of Confederation they attempted to create a loosely connected confederation of states with a weak federal government at the center. By 1787 it had become evident that the Union under the Articles of Confederation was too weak to prevent the encroachment of government upon the rights of the citizens. It was under this premise that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called and a new Constitution was created to form a federation of states with a central government over looking the protection of the rights of the citizens.

While the Constitution limits the national government in many ways, it was written in order to limit the power of the state governments. The states have always been the greatest threat to the liberties of individuals. Samuel Osgood summed up the threat of the states in a letter to John Adams a year before the Constitutional Convention, “The State governments are weak and selfish enough, and they will of course annihilate the first.” And his solution to this folly of the states, “without a proper federal head, the individual states must fall a prey to themselves, or any power that is disposed to injure them.” The existence of a federal government is essential to the protection and continuation of the various states. The federal government permits the presentation of various opinions, which ultimately will lead to the discovery of the proper course of action for all parties involved.

Through unity with the various states we can achieve the individual and collective goals of all citizens of this country. But should we fail in our unity then we will surely fall victim to the, “men [who] are ambitious, vindictive and rapacious.” In the history of Europe, what is there that makes the representatives in the various states believe that these states can exist without unity? Our National government was devised to dampen the passions of men. Yet it is undeniable that if we separate ourselves we fill fall prey to the men whose, “love of power or the desire of preeminence and dominion–the jealousy of power, or the desire of equality and safety” will lead them to call for the acquisition of our current brothers. There has never been an instant in human history where there did not exist a class of men who did not abuse the confidence of the people. Currently our state legislatures are filled with individuals who are seeking to abuse the confidence their constituents have trusted them with.
What is to stop us as separate and independent states from engaging in war with each other? Territorial disputes have plagued the nations of the world since the beginning of time. It is inevitable that the larger states will have designs on acquiring the land of the smaller states. That this should be allowed to happen is to allow for our most divine Republic to be replaced by the most unholy tyranny of Kingship. Through the Union we have been able to protect ourselves from the threat of tyranny. No one party has been able to acquire so much power under our present state of union. Yet, should we dissolve the Union then we should find ourselves amongst the control of violent factions. There is no doubt that there will be some in the various states who will have desire to gain control not only of their state but of the whole continent. In disunion we will find ourselves at the mercy of men who have no regard for the public good, but rather will pass measures, “not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party; but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority.” The survival of the various states depends upon the unity of this country.

The most pressing issue that we face, should we dissolve the Union, is that we are all commerce republics dependent on trade with each other for our mutual preservation. Presently, this is accomplished in a harmonious manner by our unity with each other in the United States of America. However, should we dissolve into independent states then it will be necessary to continue these relationships in a manner equal to that of foreign nations. In the annals of history, commercial nations fall prey to their own need for commerce and resources. There is little to suggest that as independent nations we would not become subject to this same principle. State will be forced to war with State in an attempt to preserve itself. As a Union we are able to avoid such conflict through free and open trade with each other. Independent nations can only successfully maintain such means through alliances based on mutual self interest. The interests of those within this country have traditionally been the same, or at least not to the point where they have caused a serve rift. Yet as independent states our interests will eventually clash with the interest of others. Our mutual self preservation dictates that we ought to remain united under a federal government.

For the last two years President-elect Barack Obama has offered America the sounds of hope and change as the platform for his revolutionary Presidency. Unfortunately, in the earliest days of his adminstration when he is still trying to organize the people who will make up his administration, Barack Obama has already failed to bring hope and change. The list of individuals poised to take offices within the Obama Presidency are all Democrat and Washington elites. To begin, just look at his Vice President-elect Joe Biden who himself has been a Washington insider for 30 years as a Senator for the state of Delaware. This alone should have been a warning to those individuals who voted for Obama. At such a young age, Obama owes his party and in general Washington elites for election to such a high office. As a result, we are seeing the fall out as Obama appoints leaders of the Democratic party to positions they do not even qualify for.

Enough for now on the fact that Obama and Biden are not qualified for their positions, but now it is reported that Hilary Clinton will be named Secretary of State and that Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico is poised to become the new Secretary of Commerce. Clinton is most certainly not qualified for the position of Secretary of State when you realize that in her life she has only managed to be a lawyer, the First Lady of Arkansas, the First Lady of the United States, and a JUNIOR senator from the state of New York. This resume does not scream out that Mrs. Clinton deserves to be honored by the position of Secretary of State. If anything, Clinton will humilate our nation in the eyes of our enemies. She has no foreign policy experience; she lacks international experience necessary for this job. She will be the United States Chief Diplomat to the world; she will be expected to represent us to the U.N. and individual nations.

The inexperience is not as bad as Obama’s choice of criminals and the old guard as Attorney General of the United States and the Chief of Staff. The latter was a member of the Clinton administration and the former was pardon by President Clinton before ever being convicted. How are we expected to believe that President-Elect Obama believes in change when he has brought in a member of the Clinton Administration to be his top hand in the White House? What about the fact he has offered a man who was surely going to be convicted of serious crimes the job of America’s top attorney?

Finally, we bring ourselves to Tom Daschle, former Senator for the state of South Dakota who has been offered the job of Secretary of Health & Human Services. What qualifications does one gain by being a member of the Senate to allow them to take jobs like these? Of course Mr. Daschle has served in the capacity of Public Policy advisor to a law firm in the state of South Dakota. Yet, we are expected to believe that because he was a Senator for twenty-six years and has served as a public policy advisor that he is some how qualified to hold the nation’s top public policy coordinator.

The only person who makes sense in all of the announcements thus far is Obama’s choice for Secretary of the Treasury. The man tapped for that position is Timothy Geithner, who served as the chief of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He also serves on the Federal Open Market Committe, which is responsible for our monetary policies.

All in all, it looks dismal for anyone who thought that Obama would actually bring about change. In reality, Obama is not anyone new to Washington. Like all other Presidents, he represents those who have held the Oval Office before him. He is a mixture of Lyndon B. Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt. We can only hope that this will be a one term President, unable to fully realize his plan for America.

I wish to dedicate this to all of those who realize the despair our country is about to enter through the next four years.

Ten score and thirty-two years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Tonight a mixed racial man ascended to the highest office in the land, testing whether that principal of equality could be realized. We are met on a crossroads of America. We will soon find whether or not the blood shed upon this earth will be for nothing. It is only just that we look at what has happened here tonight in order to brace ourselves for the future.

Yet, we cannot know for certain what the future holds for us. We are only mere months removed from Russia invading Georgia during the Olympic games. The North Koreans have once again promised to build a complex capable of launching longer range missiles than ever before. The world will long forget the election of 2008, but it cannot and will not forget the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States. His lack of experience will only begin to show as the coming months unfold and he is tested by enemies foreign and domestic. In the coming weeks we will see as he pays back those who supported him with high ranking offices in his new administration. And ultimately the legacy that will be left by Mr. Obama will be that of an inept President too ill prepared for the slings and arrows of his new office.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that the election of Barack Obama will spell almost certain doom for the American Republic. One can almost see St. John’s prophecy coming true:

I looked, and there was a pale green horse. Its rider was named Death, and Hades accompanied him. (Revelations 6:8)

Today is the day that America finally gets to decide who her next President will be. Will it be the socialist or the maverick? Only time will tell, and probably not until later this week or at worst this month. But for those who still haven’t gone to the polls here are a few reminders for you as go to vote:

1. Winnie the Pooh is not a viable write in candidate, he isn’t America; He is Canadian.

2. Just because Barack has the same skin color as you, doesn’t mean he is good.

3. Vote for who will produce the best results and get things done in Washington; just because you have been promised paradise doesn’t mean you won’t end up with hell on Earth.

4. Politics aside, this is the one time a year where you are truly and fully the embodiment of the United States.

5. With great power comes greater responsibility.

6. If you were in the middle of hostile territory and you had a broken leg, who would you rather have protecting you Barack Obama & Joe Biden or John McCain & Sarah Palin?

7. Socialism works, just look at Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam and the former Soviet Union if you don’t believe me.

8. We’re only 6 months away from a major international test of Barack Obama; it took the Japanese 7 years to test Franklin Roosevelt.

9. The last time we had a weak President, Americans were kept hostage for 14 months by the Iranians, but nothing like that will come from electing Obama.

10. No matter who is elected he will be the 44th President of the United States, or the 1st Chairman of the Socialist Party for the United Socialist States of America.

And finally a few words from our Democratic nominees, just a little food for thought before voting:

“Mark my words It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”- Joe Biden, (D-Vice Presidential Nominee)

“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”- Barack Obama, (D-Presidential Nominee)

In recent weeks the Republican Candidate for President of the United States, John McCain, has attacked Barack Obamafor what he sees as his socialistic beliefs. The root of these claims come from Joe the Plumber, an individual who got into it with Obama over his tax plan, which would call for a taxation of all Americans who make more than $250,000. Joe the Plumber said he was looking to open a small business in the near future, but under the Obama plan he would be heavily taxed if he made more than $250,000. Obama went on to imply that he was looking to redistribute the wealth from the wealthiest Americans down to the poorest. Obama’s exact words were, ” I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Some may argue that this doesn’t mean that Obama wants to redistribute the wealth of America, but consider this: in an endorsement by Gen. Colin Powell (Ret.), Powell said that Obama wasn’t a socialist, but that what taxes do is redistribute. Let’s get one thing straight before we move on, Gen. Powell is wrong. If you want to put your semi-socialist, Barack Obama loving glasses on then you can see taxation as a means of redistribution. Yet, taxes are universal and everyone’sfunds are taken in order to help finance government programs, and pay government officials. Your tax dollars go to things like the Iraq War and rebuilding roads. For fans of the earlier days of the Democratic party, you will agree with Andrew Jackson that a state should fix their own roads without Federal money. This view radically changed under Franklin Roosevelt, who himself faces postmortem charges of socialism. He started the wellfare state with his introduction of Social Security. Lyndon B. Johnson further helped create the system with his Great Society program, which among other things extended these programs and even created new ones. If you look at these programs, than it is easy to see where Gen. Powell is coming from. Only one problem, these programs don’t help universally all the poor as a true socialistic policy would operate. Everyone who works, and is therefore taxed, has taxes taken out to help Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.

What Barack Obama has in mind goes deeper than what FDR or LBJ had in mind. Obama, per his response to Joe, wants to take money from the wealthiest Americans and give it to the poorest. Point blank, no sugar coat, Obama has said he wants to redistribute the wealth. In 2001 Barack Obama had an interview on a Chicago radio station: Chicago Public Radio. During the interview Obama lamented that the Warren Court failed to redistribute wealth during the civil rights cases. The Warren Court is considered to be the most liberal of all the Supreme Courts we have ever had. Obama charges in the interview that it isn’t that radical because, while it gave the black man the right to sit at the lunch counter with whites, “they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal.”(Foxnews Election Central) Obama goes so far as to say, “It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.” Meaning, that the Constitution was written with certain constraints put on it by the Framers. In other words, Obama states, “that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.” His charge is nothing more than that government should be given the right to do whatever it feels is necessary to help the people. This is a similar belief of the Soviets, Communist Chinese, Communist North Koreans, Communist Cubans, and Nazis.

During the early part of the 20th century, and the late 19th century, men like Woodrow Wilson and John Dewey believed that the government should be reformed to the point where it can react quicker to the desires of the people. They also assert that government should be run by professionals, rather than by elected individuals who have no knowledge of the subject they were elected to. As a result they were able to draft, and pass, the 17th Amendment which gives the election of Senators to the people. The “negative” Constitution spoken of by Obama is similar to what the Progressives saw. The connection between Obama and the Progressives is that the Progressives developed out of Germany, and was helped started by men like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who wrote such books as Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto. Both books argue for a socialist society where the government is used to make all men equal in a way the Founders never would have understood. The end game for Marx and Engels is Communism, which comes about from a Capitalistic Society, which transforms into a Socialist Society and then finally into the destruction of the government, and of wealth/property. Wealthand property have been viewed as the root of all evil by various individuals, but none went so far as to suggest the total destruction of both than Marx and Engels. The destruction of government wasn’t a new idea to America either, men like Emerson and Thoreau.

Obama’ssuggestion that our Constitution is filled with negatives on both Federal and State legislatures is a bad reading of the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution gives power to the Federal government to: lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises in order to pay for debt, provide common defense and general welfare, to borrow money, to regulate international and interstate commerce, to create a uniform rule for naturalization and bankruptcies. to coin and value money, to fix the standards of weights and measures, to provide punishment for counterfeiting, to establish the post office, to promote arts and sciences through patents, to constitute inferior courts, to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the seas, to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water, to raise and support the army, to provide and maintain the Navy, to make rules for Government and regulation of the land and naval Forces, provide for the calling of the militia to execute laws of the nation and repel insurrections and invasions, providing/organizing/arming/disciplining the militia, exercise exclusion legislation in all cases whatsoever over all lands ceded by the states for the Federal Government for a seat of government, forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards and other needful buildings, and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper. That is everything explicitly given tot he Federal government to do. Anyone who is a student of politics knows that this gives the Federal Government extension power to do whatever it sees fit.

Barack Obama’s comments to Joe the Plumber and previously to Chicago Public Radio explicitly socialist. Obama wants to redistribute the wealth and beliefs that the civil rights era failed because it did not achieve redistribution. All of these charges coming from a man who has had one of the most privileged lives by anyone of his race. It is outrageous for anyone to suggest that Barack Obama does not harbor socialist tendencies now that it is clear he has explicitly argued for redistribution of wealth.

Over the recent weeks Barack Obama has gained a substantial lead over John McCain that some observers believed to signal the end of the Republican candidate. Current polls, however, show that McCain trails Obama by 5.2%, a drop from the almost 7% lead Obama has held in recent weeks. But as any good observer of politics will tell you, the national polls mean very little since it is the individual states who are responsible for the electoral college and thus the President of the United States.

Yet, certain battleground states have demonstrated a similar example as the national polls. In the most recent weeks and days, Obama has improved his lead on McCain or gained the lead. As recent as October 12, Obama held a 5% lead on McCain in Florida according to the Foxnews/Rassmussen poll. Then on October 16, the SurveyUSA poll shows that in the same state McCain had a 2% lead on Obama. The Real Clear Politics people combined all the polls from the earliest on October 12 to the October 16 poll to show Obama has only a 3.2% lead on his opponent. In Ohio, another key battleground state, Obama has been shown to hold a 9% point lead on McCain by the Suffolk poll (taken 10/17). However, on 10/16 NBC/Mason-Dixon showed that McCain has a 2% point lead on Obama. Real Clear Politics averaged all the polls in Ohio to a 3.3% point lead for Obama. These are just two examples that the polls are tricky and never truly accurate. What matters in these polls is who is called, and where in a given state they are taken. For example, in Ohio the Suffolk poll might have been taken in a more liberal area while the NBC/Mason-Dixon poll might have been done in a more conservative area. What can be shown, however, is that McCain has been regaining lost ground that was given up when the economy began to fall. Obama’s attack on Joe the Plumber hasn’t helped much either, and the McCain Campaign’s focus on Obama’s policies have shown holes in the Democrat’s plans. The new charge that Obama’s plan is nothing short of socialism has also brought Americans back to their senses and have seen a rise in McCain support as a result.

Either way, with election day closing in ever so quickly and early voting beginning today (at least in Texas), we are starting to see things turn differently than expected. It is still most believed, at least by this author, that come November 4 when most Americans will do their voting, the core base of the Obama supporters will be no where in sight. Obama’s two biggest groups of supporters are young people and blacks, neither have are well known for voting. The traditional base of the Democratic party, older white middle class people, are typically more conservative than the new breed of Democrats. While the addition of Joe Biden to the Obama ticket might reassure some of those more traditional Democrats, it is plausible to assume that some if not most will vote for the more moderate McCain on election day.

One of the perennial issues that has dominated Presidential elections since the 1960’s is the issue of abortion. Abortion, as we all know by now, was legalized in the United States by the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. Further abortion rights were extended in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), where Roe’s strict trimester rules were overturned to allow for abortions after the first trimester. Laws have been introduced since to help side line the number of abortions in the country, the vast majority of these laws have been found unconstitutional. Among those which have not include a law called the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which makes it illegal to perform an abortion on a child partially born (past a certain point in the woman..)

Senator Obama, one of the most liberal members of the United States government, has campaigned for President on the platform of hope and change for all Americans. He has fought for greater health care coverage to all Americans; even going so far as to call health care a right. He wants to return our fighting men and women from Iraq and Afghanistan to remove them from harms way. Yet Senator Obama has been one of the biggest supports of extending abortion rights. Obama has said before that women should not be “punished” with a baby that they do not want. In 2008 he has opposed a law which would provide medical treatment to babies who survive an attempted abortion. He has also voted no on allowing unborn children access to SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program), which provides health insurance to families with children who aren’t able to afford their own insurance. He has also voted no to prevent minors from crossing state lines in order to receive abortions, and has also voted against requiring minors from notifying their parents before receiving an abortion out of state.

While he has supported minors being able to cross state lines without telling their parents to get an abortion, he has also supported parents having more control over what their children read, play and watch. If a parent is going to have control over what their child watches, reads, or plays then why shouldn’t they have control over whether or not they get an abortion? A person under the age of 18 is not a legal adult in the eyes of the United States Government, and therefore should not be extended the rights of a legal adult. If a young girl gets pregnant, then she shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion without her parent’s permission. It is ludicrous to think that a child has to have permission to go on a school field trip when they are 15, but they can go to another state on their own and get an abortion. This is not protecting America’s youth in any ways Mr. Obama.

The general consensus on when a fetus becomes a baby is when it takes it’s first breath of air after leaving the mother. There have been instances where an unborn child has survived an attempted abortion and later been brought to term. Senator Obama has voted against providing these children with medical care when he was in the Illinois State Senate and in the United State Senate. Senator Obama wants to extend health coverage to families with children. So why does he not want to provide basic medical care, offered to every other young child, to those who survive an attempted abortion? A child who is born, as defined above, regardless of whether or not they have survived an abortion, should be granted medical care.

When looking at Senator Obama, one must not pay attention to his smoke and mirrors routine, but look at the issues and where he stands on them. Barack Obama is not a friend to children. He claims that he wants to see health insurance and medical care extended to those who don’t have insurance, specifically children, yet he was to refuse such care to those who survive an abortion. He claims that parents should have more control over what their children watch, read, or play yet he wants to restrict those parents from having say in their daughter’s pregnancy. Ask yourself this, do you want a man in the Oval Office who will protect the rights of America’s version of the Aryan child and will ignore the needs of those deemed unworthy? Or do you want a man in the Oval Office who will protect the rights of all Americans, whether they are not yet born or are already independent adults? As Governor Palin recently said in a speech on the issue of life, “Yes, every innocent life matters. Everyone belongs in the circle of protection. Every child has something to contribute to the world, if we give them that chance. There are the world’s standards of perfection… and then there are God’s, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake….”

For some time now Barack Obamahas kept up a steady tide of false promises that make him on the level with prophets such as Joseph Smith. The Kingdom of God is not going to ascend upon us in January as his “prophet” Barack Obama is sworn in as this nation’s 44th President. The election of Barack Obama will not signal  an end to economic, racial, or military woes. Obama’s plan for this country is nothing more than false rhetoric akin to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Fransisco Franco.

Barack Obama’s economic plan for the United States includes, among other things, taxing small business owners who make more than $250,000 a year. Ladies and gentlemen, the small businesses who help drive our economy are among these companies Senator Obama wishes to tax. In a recent rally in Pennsylvania, Obama was questioned about his tax program by “Joe the Plumber” who told the Senator that he wants to open a business, but Obama’s plan will prevent him from doing that. In rallies after this, Obama bashed the poor man for being a republican. Obama’s tax plan is set to bring jobs back to our country by offering corporations a $3,000 tax break per new employee. The problem is that most of these companies invest their money in foreign markets, and then never bring it back because of the taxation which would be put on their funds. In order to create new jobs it costs upwards of $20,000, a $3,000 tax break is little incentive for corporations like GE to bring jobs back to our shores. Senator Obama also blames the current economic problems of Bush’s economic policies, while completely ignoring the fact that for the majority of Bush’s presidency, the legislative branch has been democratically controlled. Among those Democrats who helped take control over both houses for the first time in 2006 was Barack Obama. A little politics lesson for Senator Obama and his apostles, Congress is responsible for the passing the budget and helping the economy. Article One of the Constitution is quite clear on the subject, the legislative power has the authority to make law not the executive nor the judicial.

Senator Obama’s attack on President Bush’s policies for the last eight years are clouded by the policies of a Democratic legislature for the last two years. Whats worse is that when Obama was elected to the United States Senate he spent all of a year actually being a Senator, and has spent the time since running for President of the United States. Obama’s economic plan for the United States will amount to doing one thing: making us Socialist. Obama has proposed the government take a more active role in the economy, which is what has us in the current problem as is.

Barack Obama’s second problem is that he is idealistic that he can affect any change in the way things are done on Capitol Hill from the Oval Office. Presidents have always attempted to change the way Congress does business from George Washington to George W. Bush. When Washington became President he took a piece of legislation over to the Congress and they kicked him out explaining it wasn’t his place to propose legislation and that they weren’t going to be bullied around. Mr. Obama seems to think that this is possible 220 years later. Change won’t come, the last President to try and create change caught to resign for his part in Water Gate. President Eisenhower  before Nixon even tried to affect change by dismantling the New Deal (which President Roosevelt never intended to be a lasting thing) but failed and is today remembered as a bumbling fool who just wanted to play golf. President Nixon was set to be our greatest reformer in the White House when the Water Gate Scandal broke. It is generally agreed that if Nixon hadn’t been attempting to make reforms, the Scandal never would have reached the Ivory Tower of the Presidency. Barack Obama should heed these warnings and realize that the change he can affect will probably only be minimal at best.

Barack Obama is a false Prophet of hope and change. His campaign is naive to think that socialism will help cure our economic woes, and that his plan for change will actually amount to anything. Obama is a man who, in his two years as a United States Senator, has received over $1 billion in earmarks, including a $3 Million projector for a local museum in Illinois. Barack Obama wants to reestablish regulation over the economy, something that will cost corporations millions of dollars resulting in job lose for millions of hard working Americans. It was the regulation policies of the Cold War and later Bill Clinton which saw jobs go across the ocean to Asia and Europe.  Further, Obama doesn’t want to control spending, in 2005 he voted against $40B to reduce government spending. We don’t need a man in office who will say one thing and do another. Senator Obama has proved that he cannot be trusted, he supports the small business as the hallmark of American ingenuity but wants to tax them. He wants to reduce government spending but as voted against actually reducing it. He wants to bring jobs back to our shores, but wants to make it unattractive and fiscally irresponsible for corporations to actually do so. On November 4th, don’t vote for Barack Obama unless you want to see false promises reign another four years.

Many of you have undoubtedly read my post “Why Not John McCain?”, which was my attempt to explain to my friends why I was not in support of John McCain’s bid for the Republican nomination for President. At that point I was against McCain’s nomination because I feel he is too liberal for my taste and pointed out the specific issues I felt we disagreed on. But as he won the Republican primary, I was among those front row as the then Presumptive Nominee for President of the United States made his acceptance speech. In the past few weeks I have been posting responses to speeches made by Michelle Obama and Joe Biden, and then by accusations that Governor Sarah Palin was unfit for the Vice Presidency. Yet I have never given full attention to why I feel John McCain is the most logical choice for President of the United States over Barack Obama.

Using On the Issues.org I will demonstrate why John McCain is the more worthy candidate for President this year. There are a handful of issues which are going to be important in the next four years, those are: Energy, Foreign Policy, Gay Rights, Abortion, Economy and Immigration. The most perennial of these issues has to be Abortion and so it will be dealt with first. John McCain is a pro life candidate, which is more than can be said for either Barack Obama or Joe Biden. McCain is against public funding for abortions, which will make it less cost efficient for abortion clinics to remain open having to depend on the money brought in by their customers. McCain recognizes that if Abortion clinics are not receiving public aide for their operation, the cost of operating will fall on the women who seek abortions. The rise in cost in Abortions will ultimately force many women to forgo having an abortion and of course will close free abortion clinics which cater to the lower income women and teens in general. Likewise, McCain supports the prosecution of Abortion doctors rather than the women who seek them out. A doctor who knows they will be prosecuted for performing an Abortion is less likely to do so than if they know they are permitted. Many will argue that as doctors refuse to perform Abortions many women will revert to back alley abortions. John McCain also supports adoption and foster care in order to help give women an alternative to abortion. McCain has shown this willingness to support adoption has he himself has an adopted daughter named Bridget, and adopted his first wife’s two sons Douglass and Andrew. McCain’s voting record demonstrates his support for Pro Life stances, including voting to continue the ban on abortions on Military bases, and making it a crime to harm a fetus when committing another crime.

The second issue, which has for sometime now been building to what will possibly be a national issue, Gay Rights, specifically Marriage. Senator McCain believes that the issue of homosexual marriage should be left up to the states, believing it to be unrepublican for the Federal government to decide. However, he has also voted against making sexual orientation a part of the hate crime definition. While he does not support a Federal definition of marriage as one man, one woman, he has shown support for California Proposition no. 8 which would do just that for the state of California. McCain is also in favor of maintaining the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy of the United States Armed Forces. For many Conservatives, though not this one, McCain’s stance on Gay Marriage is exactly what they wish: he is against it personally, but does not believe it is the Federal government’s place to deny it.

Since the beginning of the American Republic there have been two key issues that we have struggled with: Immigration and Foreign Policy. The two issues are interconnected and thus will be dealt with here together. Immigration today is largely focused on Hispanic immigration, primarily from Mexico. There is always a threat, whether laughable or not, that Mexican immigration could be a part of a larger ploy by Mexico to reclaim the lands lost during the Mexican-American War (Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona.) Recognizing this, and the need to ensure immigration is kept orderly, Senator McCain voted for a fence to be built along the Mexican-American border. In 2007, John McCain voted in favor of making the English language the official language of the United States Government, though this was primarily viewed as a ceremonial jester by Congress. He is in favor of a Guest Worker program and granting visas to skilled workers. He also has voted in favor of allowing limited health care to be provided to immigrants. In July of 2001, McCain came out in support of English immersion rather than bilingual education. Overall, McCain is in support of immigration reform. Border security, his primary concern in reforming immigration, is intrinsically connected to foreign policy. While the Mexican government is allied with the United States, drug dealers and rogue nations like Venezuela are always threats to our national security.

John McCain supports a healthy defense budget, including modernizing outdated military technology such as the C-130, B-2 and Seawolf. He also wants to raise the salary of the United States Armed Forces in order to help divert the need for a draft. McCain also finds it embarrassing that we have soldiers or former soldiers living on food stamps. He did not vote in favor of limiting time in Iraq for soldiers to 12 months. McCain also supports the closing of unnecessary bases, finding it ludicrous that we leave bases open simply for political reasons. In March of 2005 McCain sponsored a bill which banned torturing of terrorists in U.S. Custody. In February of 1999 he voted in favor of raising the military salary by 4.8%. John McCain is the most logical choice for President in a time when we are at war and potentially could be at war with Russia or Iran within the next four years. Obama lacks military or foreign policy experience, John McCain has both. We need a person in office with military knowledge, over the last 16 years we have had individuals in office without true military knowledge leading us in war. We cannot afford, with the prospect of a true declared war, to have an individual in the Oval Office that lacks knowledge of military and foreign affairs.

On the Economy, John McCain is very important for our country. In 2006 he voted to permanently repeal the death tax. Then in 2008 he voted to raise the exemption from 1 million to 5 million on the death tax. In 2000 he voted in favor of eliminating the marriage tax and in 2001 voted to reduce the marriage penalty. John McCain is also against unions, believing that they are monopolies and voted in favor of giving employers the power to interfere in unions. McCain is also an advocate of free trade, voting to extend free trade to Oman, Singapore, Chile, and the Andean Nations. McCain has also voted in favor of normal trade relations with China and Vietnam. Finally, McCain is for less government spending and voted in 1997 in favor of the Balanced Budget Amendment. He is in favor of using the veto to stop over spending by Congress and has voted against pork barrel bills and pork spending.

Finally, we are faced with a problem of energy in this nation as we have become more and more dependent on foreign oil suppliers to support our nation. As a result we have become subject to nations which wish us ill including Venezuela who is our largest oil supplier. Senator McCain is in favor of nuclear power, which I personally believe is the most logical way to deal with our energy problems. In 2005 McCain voted in favor of banning oil drilling in ANWR, while his running mate and current Governor of Alaska is in favor of drilling in ANWR. McCain does believe that the climate has changed and is in support of reducing green house gases. McCain recognizes the need to cut our dependency on foreign oil and finding alternative methods to provide energy for this nation.

McCain has shown, throughout his time in Congress, an ability to work with both sides of the aisle and help reform our government and protect our nation for future generations. On the major that are presenting themselves for the next four years, John McCain has answers that are more correct than Barack Obama. He has the knowledge necessary should our nation engage in wars with Iran or Russia. He understands our nation’s immigration problems as he represents the state of Arizona, one of the most hard hit states from illegal immigration. He recognizes the need for finding alternative fuel sources and supports the development of Nuclear power. John McCain supports the pro life stance and has sought to criminalize abortion in the most legally sensible methods possible. He recognizes the problems with our economy and knows that we must be willing to freely trade with other nations to help protect our own economy. Barack Obama has offered empty promises and has nothing in his voting record to demonstrate his steadfast character on the issues.

With a historic election coming to us in November, it is important that every American who is eligible to vote in the Presidential, Congressional, and State wide elections to do so. A nation founded upon the principle that the power of government is granted by the people needs a people who are willing to exercise not only their right but their duty in controlling that government through voting. The only effective government is that which is dependent solely on the people for it’s power. But the people themselves, who are the fountain of that power, must be willing and able to concern themselves with the affairs of government in order to keep that government in check. The Ancient Greeks understood this problem and young men were expected to engage in the political sphere in order to maintain their governments. The Romans initially understood this concept, but by the time of the late Republic the enfranchised citizens of Rome cared less about their government and more about their private self interests. This ultimately lead to the destruction of the Roman Republic and the rise of a violent, despotic regime ruled by the Caesars. The Founders of our nation, influenced by centuries of Modern philosophic writings, understood this important distinction. They understood that in order for a regime to survive based on the people, the people must be willing to maintain the government.

Initially in America voting rights were limited to white males who were at least 21 years of age and owned property. Today we are aghast to find out that the Founders, these champions of liberty, sought to limit elections to white property owning men. Their justification was that only those who owned property, which was limited to white males, could possibly need to concern themselves with the affairs of Government. Furthermore, property owners, unlike the poor, are not subject to be influenced by their employers to vote a specific way. The Founders believed that voting should be a private matter, not subject to the whims of employers and city bosses. John Adams argues in his letter to James Sullivan, “Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest…” The same holds for women and children, they are dependent upon the man of the house who can influence their voting decisions. The fixing of voting requirements to white males who are 21 and own property according to Adams was, “Society can be governed only by general rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case, as it happens, nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general, comprehensive regulations for cases and persons. The only question is, which general rule, will accommodate most cases and most persons.”

However, as we all know the Government changed voting laws with the passage of the 15th Amendment, which allows the right to vote to all males no matter their color. As we all know the right to vote was limited among blacks by Jim Crow laws after Reconstruction was ended by requiring individuals to be literate, and own property though they were forbidden from owning property or going to school in some cases. These laws would eventually change and today all men, of any color has been granted the right to vote. The Constitution was further amended by the 19th Amendment which made it unconstitutional for government to limit the right to vote based on sex. The 24th Amendment of the Constitution forbides poll or voting taxes, essentially doing away with property requirements. The 26th Amendment, passed in 1971, was the last of the Constitutional Amendments to change the understanding of voting rights when it lowered the voting age to 18. Adams once again indicates why the voting age was initially set at 21 by most States, ” The reason is, you must fix upon some period in life, when the understanding and will of men in general is fit to be trusted by the public.” In a recent Death Penalty case before the Supreme Court, the High Court defined the age of reason and therefore the age at which one is able to be punished with Death for a crime as 18 years old.

All individuals who are at least 18 years of age must take advantage of their right to vote, granted to them by the Constitution itself. But whether or not voting is merely a right or a requirement of citizens is something more to look at. The basis of government is, as has been said before, the people and it is only through the people that government can be limited through periodic elections. Therefore, the “right” to vote is not merely a right as freedom of religion, or the ability to own guns. Voting is a requirement of citizenship, to be a good citizen one must engage in the public affairs via voting. It is the duty as Americans to educate oneself about public matters in order to make the best, most well informed decision possible in the voting booth in November. Adams states, “For government is a frame, a scheme, a system, a combination of powers, for a certain end, viz the good of the whole community. The public good, the salus populi is the professed end of all government, the most despotic, as well as the most free.” The only way that the people can ensure and maintain the public good is to prevent corrupt and unjust rulers from holding office. The only way in which the frame, scheme, system, and combination of powers aimed at the good of the community can be achieved is if the people, the foremen of the Great American Experience, keep a solid eye on their government so that it does not grow cancerous and destroy the people.

The exercise of the body is the only way in which the body can remain healthy. Likewise, the exercise of rights is the only way those rights remain intact and useful to a people. The only way to maintain the health of a nation is if the people exercise their rights and duties regularly. Voting is as a physician for the regime, curing it of its infections so as to not kill itself. Only through exercising their right to vote can the people of a good regime keep that regime good and healthy.

At approximately 9:35 Central Standard Time the presumptive Vice Presidential Nominee of the Republican Party, one Madam Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) came to the podium to give her acceptance speech to thousands of cheering fans and millions of Americans at home. For the first time in this year’s Presidential Convention season a nominee told the absolute truth. In order to disprove any nay sayers I will present to you all the speech paragraph by paragraph of the Good Governor’s speech. While I will not address each paragraph, I will focus on those which are the most meaningful.

Governor Palin began her speech as was necessary when she stated, “Mr. Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens, I will be honored to accept your nomination for vice president of the United States.” Unlike Joe Biden when he made his speech at the Democratic National Convention, Sarah Palin is not yet the official nominee for Vice President for the Republican Party. Her nomination will not come until tomorrow when John McCain will make his first speech as the Republican Nominee for President of the United States.

Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by. He’s a man who wore the uniform of his country for 22 years and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who now have brought victory within sight.

Unlike Barack Obama and Joe Biden, John McCain has not been a life long politician or lawyer. Instead Mr. McCain went to Annapolis and became a United States Naval Aviator. Shot down in 1967 over Vietnam, John McCain was sent to the infamous Hanoi Hilton where the North Vietnamese took many  American POWs. It was not until after his return from Vietnam in 1973 that John McCain began his trail to the White House though he remained in the military until 1982 when he finally ran for the House of Representatives. John McCain, unlike his democratic counterparts, has real life experience when it comes to National Security. The closest the Democratic ticket comes is Senator Biden who sits on the Senate’s Foreign Policy committee. As a soldier during Vietnam, arguably America’s most unpopular war, John McCain understands what it means to troops to have a government willing to support their efforts in a foreign land. We have one of the only all Volunteer militaries in the world, and it is impossible to say that the Men and Women who serve our nation should be disrespected by our government. Knowing full well that they will be sent to War, young men and women continue to enlist in the United States Armed Forces and the message Obama and Biden wish to send them is that their efforts are worthless to this country. The blanket of freedom have and appreciate is only possible by those brave soldiers and sailors who feel it is their duty to answer the call of their Nation. One of those young men is Track Palin who will be shipped off to Iraq on September 11. As a mother of a son in the military Sarah Palin feels the need to keep her child safe, just as any other mother feels when their son or daughter is sent to war. The best way she feels is to have a commander-in-chief in the Oval Office who knows what it is like to be sent by one’s country to fight. John McCain, if elected, will become the first man or woman to be elected President who served in Vietnam. The last President to have had military-war time experience was President George H.W. Bush. The last two Presidents have been a draft dodger and a member of the Air National Guard.

Everyone should know by now that Governor Palin and her husband have five children, two boys and three girls. The eldest daughter is five months pregnant and due to marry the father of her child. Governor Palin and daughter have received criticism by the media for the decision to allow a 17 year old girl to keep the child and to “force” her to marry the father. This is an absurd comment to make, the most honorable thing a man can do is to marry a woman whom he gets pregnant; not give her the money for an abortion. For those wondering, the legal age of consent in Alaska is 16. Governor Palin, before talking about her youngest son, admits that her family is no different than any other. They have had, “the same ups and downs as any other, the same challenges and the same joys.” The most difficult moment for any family to face, aside from a teenager daughter or son becoming a parent, is the birth of a child with a disability. In April Governor Palin gave birth to a son with Down Syndrome. People have been quick to judge her for this decision, yet speaking as a member of the disabled community there is nothing greater than to see a parent in the age where abortion can be gotten with absolute ease for a parent to keep their child and love them no matter what. This speaks volumes about the type of parents Sarah and Todd Palin are, that they would willingly and knowingly want to raise a child who will struggle day in and day out for acceptance by the outside world and to live a normal life. This is a refreshing image of sorts, as it was John F. Kennedy who was president in the 1960’s had a sister who was mentally disabled and her family decided to place her in a mental ward. And to this day only one person has achieved the office of President and been disabled: Franklin D. Roosevelt who suffered from Polio and went to great lengths to hide his condition from the American people.

Governor Palin’s morality and ethics stem from her childhood, neither parent was well off and both worked in the local elementary school. She grew up in a small town, quite different from Barack Obama who grew up in Jakarta and Honolulu. The last President to be born in a small town is a lot like Governor Palin, a person who would not stand up to corruption and unethical dealings in government. The only President of the 20th Century to have never graduated college was born to farmers in Missouri: Harry S. Truman. In 1944 he was selected as the Vice President for Franklin Roosevelt, running for his 4th term as President. Feeling he would not cause any chaos in the office, Democratic officials pressed Roosevelt to choose him despite Roosevelt’s failing health. Barely into his fourth term, Franklin Roosevelt died; Harry S. Truman, who by all comparisons to Governor Palin, lacked experience to hold the office, ascended into the Oval Office. Truman to this day is idolized by both parties as Andrew Jackson, our first President born in the west, was used as the image of a President up until after the Civil War. As a shot at Michelle Obama, Governor Palin stated, “I grew up with [small town people]. They’re the ones who do some of the hardest work in America, who grow our food, and run our factories, and fight our wars. They love their country in good times and bad, and they’re always proud of America.” Anyone from a small town should be proud to know that Governor Palin knows what it is like to grow up outside of the big cities where men like Barack Obama has lived his whole life.

Echoing something that former Mayor Rudy Giuliani stated in his speech, Governor Palin took a shot at the Democrats saying she lacks experience, “I guess — I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.” Senator Obama began his political career as a community organizer in Chicago, where he did little to actually help the standard of living for those he “helped.” Correctly, Governor Palin points out that Obama is willing to tell anyone what they want to hear and then when their back is turned retract those statements. Obama is not a man of conviction like John McCain or even Sarah Palin who are both known to stand up for what they believe in even when everyone else says they are wrong. The only reason the media claims she is inexperienced is as she said, “if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.” But neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin care to appeal to the media, because they aren’t the ones who matter come election day. The job of a politician is to help those whom they serve, and they serve the people of the United States of America. Governor Palin emphasis this when she said, “Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reason and not just to mingle with the right people. Politics isn’t just a game of clashing parties and competing interests. The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it. No one expects us all to agree on everything, but we are expected to govern with integrity, and goodwill, and clear convictions, and a servant’s heart.”

Governor Palin goes on to explain her accomplishments as Governor of Alaska, accomplishments that Barack Obama only dreams of matching. She did away with the Governor’s personal luxury jet, stating she “put it on eBay.” She asserts she drives her self to school and did away with the personal chef of the Governor to help save money where it didn’t need to be spent. She has vetoed bills that promote unnecessary spending in excess of $500 billion providing Alaska with a budget surplus. In his time as Senator, Obama has yet to see this in the Federal budget. Like Sarah Palin, John McCain is willing to work with legislators to cut spending or to veto their bills to force them to cut spending. Obama wants to enlarge our government. Palin stated, “Government is too big; [Obama] wants to grow it. Congress spends too much money; he promises more.Taxes are too high, and he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan.”

Her biggest accomplishment as Governor is helping to solve America’s energy problem by building a natural gas line in Alaska which will help Americans move away from foreign oil. She proposes that the McCain administration will help build Nuclear Power Plants, Wind and Solar energy plants, and tap into America’s natural oil resources like that on the North Slope in Alaska. The Democrats she asserts, “Our opponents say again and again that drilling will not solve all of America’s energy problems, as if we didn’t know that already. But the fact that drilling, though, won’t solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.” In fact that is all Democrats have proposed, to do nothing except stop drilling for oil. They want to place more dependence on countries in the Middle East who rather us dead .

And next she discusses the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which America is winning just as we were winning in Vietnam before we pulled out. Obama and other democrats refuse to recognize the accomplishments our troops of made in these two countries. Obama refuses to admit we’ve achieved victory, instead he rather talk about his own victories in politics.

Obama’s plans for the economy are to raise taxes to stifle businesses as she points out, “The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, and raise payroll taxes, and raise investment income taxes, and raise the death tax, and raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.” What will that do exactly, she points out accurately, to small business owners who are unable to withstand these taxes and are forced to close? What about the businesses who are forced to lay people off because they are unable to support paying them? Senator Obama has no plan for America, he only has plans to make himself great by becoming President. She stated, “In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers, and then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.” But Barack Obama views it as a means to an end, what that end is nobody by Obama can answer. Sarah Palin is right when she stated, “My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery.” Barack Obama is nothing but speeches of empty words intended to rally the American people just as Adolf Hitler used his speeches to rally the German people.

We live in a world, the Governor asserts, that is filled with dangers–specifically from terrorists who want to see America burn. We don’t need individuals who use empty phrases as “fighting for you.” As the movie A Few Good Men states, “You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline.” John McCain has demonstrated throughout his life that unlike Obama and Biden he has defended and fought for this country when other men of his era, like Bill Clinton, ran away from responsibility and nearly 30 years later used promises to fight for the American people as a punchline in their comedic sketch to the White House. John McCain has proven himself willing and able to defend this country and to fight for the American people. Sarah Palin has shown time and again in her career in Alaska that she is willing to fight for the interests of the average person. Barack Obama, in his time in elective politics has written two memoirs while authoring no major piece of legislation. Whether you agree or disagree with McCain, he co-authored the single most important piece of government reform with Senator Feingold. Sarah Palin wants to bring wealth and prosperity to the people of Alaska by building a natural gas line, and by drilling in ANWAR. Barack Obama and Joe Biden only have words and false promises to help reform the government, and help make America a more prosperous nation.

There are some who still insist that Governor Palin of Alaska,John McCain’s Vice Presidential nominee, is not ready to assume the mantle of responsibility should McCain win in November. It has already been presented by myself, and surely other individuals, that Governor Palin is more prepared for this office than either Barack Obama or Joe Biden. But rather than repeating the good Governor’s qualifications, I wish to refute these charges with history. It is through history which we may find proof of others with experience like Governor Palin’s, which will demonstrate that she can be a competent and ready leader should this nation need her to take the office of the President of the United States.

Prior to emigrating to the Americas in 1630, John Winthrop had been elected Governor of the colony sponsored and established by the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Winthrop’s election to the office of Governor is a shock to modern students, and even might have stunned some of his own contemporaries. While he had gone through some schooling at Cambridge, he left his education and instead took up the study of law, which he failed to become a member of the bar. Winthrop was nevertheless appointed to various courts during the 1620’s and eventually lead to him being elected Governor of the Colony of Massachusetts prior to 1630. During his life in the colony, Winthrop would go on to be elected to the Governorship many times. Winthrop had only a marginal amount of experience prior to his election, having only served as a commissioner since 1615. There were certainly other individuals more qualified for the position, including two of the men who had helped found the Massachusetts Bay Colony. During his time as an Assistant, and as Governor, Winthrop was closely involved in the direction the government of Massachusetts would undertake. It was Winthrop who initially set this course out prior to embarking on the migration west in his “Modell of Christian Charity” where he calls for the people of Massachusetts to be “as a City upon a Hill.” During battles with fellow colonial leaders, Winthrop would defend his positions in political treatises on a variety of subjects. This man, who had never graduated university and had very little experience to govern a colony had garnered election to the Governorship every year from 1647 until his death. Upon his death the people of Boston and Massachusetts mourned the death of their leader.

Today we are embattled once again, for whatever reasons they have individuals have attacked Governor Palin, claiming she is not prepared to take on the Presidency if she is called to do so. There is no proof of this, but rather there is proof for her ability to take the Presidency should she and McCain be elected in November. Like Winthrop, Palin has the experience necessary to inform her and prepare her for the elevation to a much bigger role. While Winthrop’s appointments to commissions may not have been equal to the office of Governor, his previous experienced informed him how best to go about executing his office of Governor. Palin likewise has experience as a Mayor and Governor, which should she be called to take the Oath of Office for President of the United States, she will have requisite experience to help inform her on how best to discharge her duties.

Yet, on the other side Senators Obama and Biden have never had the executive experience that would assist in informing them on how best to execute the office of President. Senator Obama is a junior senator who only involved himself in politics beginning in 1996 at the state level. Joe Biden was elected Senator at age 30 and has been in the office ever since. Neither served in a position that would require executive experience or authority. It is unjust for individuals to attack Sarah Palin as being inexperienced, while ignoring her credentials. I can only imagine that these Vultures are  only afraid to see a strong, confident Conservative woman enter the Vice President’s Mansion. Her experience is like that of John Winthrop and other famous leaders in history, who were able to use that experience to inform them when they were called upon to undertake but nevertheless fulfilled the office with the greatest honor. If being governor is not proper experience, necessary to fulfill the chief executive position in the Federal Government than what is? How can one say that Barack Obama or Joe Biden, two career senators with absolutely no executive experience on any level, are qualified and experienced enough to take the Presidency and Vice Presidency, but a woman with a decade long resume of executive experience is not.