ALERT! ALERT! All eyes on Massachusetts. I love the spin. Liberal pundits are in a quandry over this senate race in Massachusetts. Opinions are like arses, everyone has a unique one. The polls are all over the place. John Zogby is predicting a one point win for Coakley. Most of the rest has Brown up by at least three. It really doesn't matter, This extremely close race for "Teddy's seat," it should have been a thirty point wipeout for a democrat. I think this is a shot across the demoncrat's bow. We all know that the democrat's can figure out a way to pass some form of a healthcare bill. However, the democrats know the American people will vote them to the curb. Especially, the midterm election next November will be the worst change over of congress this nation has ever seen. That is a promise. I have talked to so many members of different organizations I belong to who have found a new patriotic spirit with a main purpose of voting out the politicians who do not represent the American people and follow our Constitution. Period. These are not small groups. They are organizations with thousands of Americans who are fed up with politics as usual. I assume they don't care about getting re-elected. (And I thought that was all they cared about). One of the interesting side bars is the fighting, blame and finger pointing going on in the democrat party. The White House is making plans concerning the senate seat being losed already. (God willing!) Even Obama advisor, David Axelrod praised Scott Brown for instrumenting a good campaign. Reports have said Obama is surprised and frustrated about this possible loss. Duh! I think even a lousy democrat should win in Massachusetts. With a three to one democrat majority, it shouldn't even be a news story. Watching the news programs today, many residents of Massachusetts were exiting the voting locations talking up Brown and talking down the politically corrupt machine. Hopefully, this will put a lot of doubt in the minds of democrats concerning Obamacare and Obama's agenda in general. Polling locations close at 8 pm. It would so interesting to have Scott Brown as the forty first republican senator. "Something is in the air."
Cheaters, Cheaters:
Daft statement of the day:
"Scott Brown Is A Racist, Teabagging, Ex-Nude Model."
Keith Olbermann
Pelosi: "We Will Have Health Care One Way Or Another"
"Let's remove all doubt, we will have health care -- one way or another."
Kill Bill Vol. III
Opposition to Senate Healthcare Bill: Call your Senators!
"We the people" must stop the Obamacare Proposals: I am formally asking (pleading) with you to muster up the initiative and enthusiasm to fight the healthcare bill that will emerge in the end of the year. First, there are 2 bills (proposals) that will somehow be merged into one bill. Liberals are adamant about some form of "Public Option" (Government Run Option) and federally funded abortion. I think the democrats believe they can push this bill through while we are sleeping. The democrats have blocked many bills that would allow the final bill to be posted on the internet 72 hours prior to a vote. Why? you know why. We must oppose this more than we did over the summer. Let them know, we are not against healthcare reform, just not a total makeover. Call and email your representatives. I have emailed and called mine so many times, they are referring to me by my first name. Write an old fashioned letter, it has a lot of importance. Attend your local tea parties and townhalls to voice your opinions and make a overwhelming presence. Below, is a little list how you can get involved. It is our civic duty. "It is our Country."
http://www.congress.org/
http://www.joinpatientsfirst.com/
http://www.freedomworks.org/
http://www.resistnet.com/
http://www.teapartypatriots.com/
http://www.teaparty.org/
http://www.taxpayer.org/
http://www.taxpayer.net/
info@cmpi.org
http://www.fairtax.org/
http://www.conservativeamericansunited.org/
CALL YOUR SENATORS! EMAIL YOUR SENATORS! CALL YOUR SENATORS! EMAIL YOUR SENATORS!
Obama's First Year: Failures and Broken Promises
Tuesday, 19 Jan 2010 07:42 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Exactly one year ago today, President Barack Obama swept into the White House on winds of promised change. But a Newsmax look back at his first 365 days in office finds far fewer highlights than lowlights.
On the positive side, Obama no doubt raised the image of America abroad, as demonstrated by his selection as the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, and he drew praise by going to Dover Air Force Base to witness the return of some American soldiers killed in action.
He signed legislation in February to expand publicly funded insurance for children, reducing the number of uninsured youth by half.
He saw the Senate confirm his choice for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, as the first Latino justice on the high court.
And he set a new record for getting Congress to vote a president’s way, clinching 96.7 percent of the votes on which he had clearly staked a position — breaking the record set by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, according to Congressional Quarterly.
Some would say that passage of the $787 billion stimulus package should also be viewed as an Obama success in that it may have staved off an even deeper economic meltdown.
But on the negative side, Obama’s first year has been marked by failures, gaffes, broken promises and other missteps, including:
Within days of taking office, Obama broke his pledge not to raise any taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year by imposing a tax hike of 61 cents on a pack of cigarettes. According to Americans for Tax Reform, measures supported by the president would hike taxes by $2.1 trillion over 10 years.
Just weeks after moving into the White House, Obama signed an executive order to shut down the detainee center at Guantanamo Bay and ordered it closed within a year. Nearly a year after he signed the order, the facility remains open.
The administration decided to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other 9/11 terrorists in a civilian court in New York rather than in a military court, prompting critics to predict a “public show trial.”
Obama traveled to Copenhagen, Denmark, in an effort to convince Olympics officials to stage the 2016 games in Chicago. They chose Rio de Janeiro instead.
Obama also traveled to Copenhagen for the much-ballyhooed climate change conference, but the bid to forge a broad alliance against global warming fell short, and the Obama-favored cap-and-trade legislation appears to be dead in Congress.
The president dithered for months before finally agreeing to send additional troops to Afghanistan, then drew criticism for setting a date for U.S. withdrawal. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that less than half of respondents approve of Obama’s handling of the war overall.
Obama said he would end the war in Iraq. In the year since he took office, 473 more soldiers have died there and elsewhere, and troops remain in Iraq.
Obama’s efforts to seek a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear program have produced no results and the Islamic Republic appears more determined than ever to acquire nuclear weapons.
Diplomacy has also failed to rein in North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile programs.
When mass demonstrations against the Iranian government broke out in June, Obama angered and disappointed opponents of the regime by sidestepping any condemnation of Iran’s use of force against protesters, and said the Islamic Republic had time to regain “legitimacy” in the eyes of the Iranian people.
Despite a campaign pledge to allow C-SPAN to televise congressional meetings, Obama and the Democrats have rebuffed a request from C-SPAN to air healthcare discussions and the final version of the healthcare bill will now be hammered out behind closed doors.
Obama also pledged to usher in a new era of bipartisanship, then went more than six months without meeting with Republican leaders on healthcare.
Obama stirred outrage when he appeared to bow to Saudi King Abdullah at a G-20 meeting in London, a move the Washington Times called an “extraordinary protocol violation.” Despite the criticism, the president also bowed to Japanese Emperor Akihito during a November visit trip to Tokyo.
Candidate Obama vowed that no lobbyists would work in his White House. President Obama waived that rule in June for Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, who was a registered lobbyist for a defense contractor. Other lobbyists serving in the Obama administration include Ron Kirk, U.S. Trade Representative, and Cecilia Munoz, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs at the White House.
Obama angered ally Israel by calling for an end to new Jewish settlements in the West Bank, then backed down when Israel’s prime minister refused to halt new construction.
The Obama White House launched an all-out attack on Fox News in an attempt to stifle opposition to its liberal policies, only to see ratings for the cable network soar.
Obama had to accept ultimate responsibility when the so-called underwear bomber incident exposed serious gaps in the system for detecting and preventing terrorist plots.
Security at the White House itself was shown to be porous when two uninvited guests crashed an event honoring the prime minister of India.
Obama nominated former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Daschle withdrew his name amid a growing controversy over his failure to accurately report and pay income taxes.
The confirmation of Hilda Solis as Secretary of Labor was stalled when it came to light that her husband had paid about $6,400 to settle numerous tax liens against his business dating to 1993.
At his Senate confirmation hearings, it was revealed that Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner had not paid $35,000 in self-employment taxes for several years. He also deducted the cost of his children's sleep-away camp as a dependent care expense, when only expenses for day care are eligible for the deduction.
Annette Nazareth, who was nominated for Deputy Treasury Secretary to help Geithner, withdrew for undisclosed "personal reasons" following a month-long probe into her taxes and other matters.
President-elect Obama designated New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson for appointment to the Commerce Secretary position. A month later, Richardson announced his decision to withdraw his nomination as a result of an investigation into improper business dealings in New Mexico.
Obama appointed Van Jones to be the administration’s “green jobs” czar in March. But he became embroiled in controversy over his past political activities, including his 1990s association with a Marxist group and a public comment disparaging Congressional Republicans, and resigned in September.
Nancy Killefer stepped down from consideration to become the government’s first chief performance officer when it was learned her past performance included failure to pay taxes for her household help.
In July, Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., was arrested at his home by Cambridge, Mass., police officer Sgt. James Crowley, who was responding to a report of a break-in, and charged with disorderly conduct. Obama created a furor by commenting that the Cambridge police acted “stupidly” in arresting the African-American teacher. That led to the Obama-moderated “Beer Summit” between Gates and Crowley, which Townhall.com called “the most demeaning moment of any president in recent memory.”
When the administration announced that the U.S. Census would be directed by the White House under the auspices of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Republicans warned that will politicize apportionment of House seats, redistricting, and distribution of federal aid.
Obama appointed as his Secretary of Commerce Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, who had voted in 1995 to abolish the Commerce Department. In the face of reports that the administration would move the Census, typically run by the Commerce Department, out of Gregg’s jurisdiction, he withdrew his name from consideration.
When British Prime Minister Gordon Brown became the first head of government to visit the White House, Obama let word out that the bust of Churchill that Prime Minister Tony Blair had presented to the U.S. as a gift from the British people had been returned to the British Embassy.
Obama also canceled a joint news conference with Brown and excluded British reporters from covering Obama’s press conference, an act the London Daily Telegraph called “rudeness personified towards Britain.”
A month later he gave a gift to Queen Elizabeth: An iPod full of his own speeches.
Obama eased travel and remittance restrictions on Cuba. But Fidel Castro later said Obama "misinterpreted" what his brother Raul had said. Cuba would not be willing to negotiate about human rights, Castro insisted.
Obama and his staff vacillated on whether to prosecute those who carried out “enhanced interrogations,” first saying that CIA operatives carrying out orders were in the clear, then later saying it would be up to Attorney General Eric Holder to decide whether some officials should be prosecuted.
The stock market hit a seven-year low, with the Dow dipping below 7,000, after Obama likened the market to political “tracking polls,” suggesting they’re unimportant.
In the first appearance ever by a sitting president on late-night television, Obama remarked to Jay Leno that his bowling ability is “like Special Olympics, or something.” He soon issued an apology for his insensitive remark.
Obama betrayed allies Poland and the Czech Republic by canceling plans to build a missile defense shield in those nations to guard against an attack from Iran. Obama reportedly wanted Russia’s help in resolving the nuclear weapons issue in Iran, but Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said he would not "haggle" over Iran and the missile shield.
In his inaugural address, Obama called on Americans to adopt a spirit of sacrifice. But the $49 million cost of his swearing-in ceremony was triple the cost of Bush’s first inaugural.
Obama said in February that approval of his $787 billion stimulus package was urgent. Congress got its work done on a Friday, but Obama and his wife Michelle flew off on Air Force One to Chicago for the Valentine’s Day weekend and dined at a romantic restaurant before flying back to Washington on Monday to sign the bill.
Obama promised workers at Caterpillar Inc. that his stimulus bill would save their jobs. Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens later said there would be more layoffs at the company.
Obama pledged during his campaign to slash earmarks to no greater than 1994 levels, which would be 1,318, according to the Washington Times. Then he signed into law some 9,000 earmarks, totaling about $5 billion.
Obama promised in February to crack down on executive pay for companies that take “exceptional” amounts of bailout money. But he did nothing to stop 73 executives from AIG, which has received $170 in bailout funds, from taking home bonuses of up to $6.4 million.
Obama’s promise of a public option in the healthcare reform plan — a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers — has died in the Senate. His plan to allow lower-cost drug imports into the U.S. was also defeated.
Looking at the high and low points of Obama’s first year, it is no surprise that his job approval rating has plummeted from around 70 percent when he took office to below 50 percent today. And the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 62 percent of Americans now say the country is on the wrong track, the most in 11 months
Green Piece:
Climate Science as a Game of Telephone
Monday, January 18, 2010, 2:39 PM
Joe Carter
Remember this game you played as a kid: The first player whispers a sentence to the next player and each player successively whispers what that player believes they heard to the next. The last player announces the statement to the entire group, which invariably has changed in a quite amusing ways from the original. When kids play this game it’s called “Telephone”; when climate scientist play this game it’s called “peer-reviewed research.”
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.
Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: “If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.”
The IPCC’s reliance on Hasnain’s 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: “Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis.
“Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole massif.”
Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. “I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about,” he said.
Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as “voodoo science”.
Read the whole thing, for the entire article is stunning. The fact that this type of mistake could be made in the first place is disconcerting. But for the IPCC chairman—who obviously knew nothing about the veracity of the claim about the Himalayan glacier—to say that any criticism is “voodoo science” is a level of hubris that can only come from a bureaucrat. If the IPCC can’t even be trusted on the simple issues how are we to trust them when they make claims about complex, controversial matters?
Writings of Our Founding Fathers
Federalist No. 2
Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence
WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident.
Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government.
It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object. But politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties. However extraordinary this new doctrine may appear, it nevertheless has its advocates; and certain characters who were much opposed to it formerly, are at present of the number. Whatever may be the arguments or inducements which have wrought this change in the sentiments and declarations of these gentlemen, it certainly would not be wise in the people at large to adopt these new political tenets without being fully convinced that they are founded in truth and sound policy.
It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities.
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.
Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us. To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.
A strong sense of the value and blessings of union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay, at a time when their habitations were in flames, when many of their citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries and reflections which must ever precede the formation of a wise and wellbalanced government for a free people. It is not to be wondered at, that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer.
This intelligent people perceived and regretted these defects. Still continuing no less attached to union than enamored of liberty, they observed the danger which immediately threatened the former and more remotely the latter; and being pursuaded that ample security for both could only be found in a national government more wisely framed, they as with one voice, convened the late convention at Philadelphia, to take that important subject under consideration.
This convention composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men, undertook the arduous task. In the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool, uninterrupted, and daily consultation; and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any passions except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils.
Admit, for so is the fact, that this plan is only RECOMMENDED, not imposed, yet let it be remembered that it is neither recommended to BLIND approbation, nor to BLIND reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand, and which it certainly ought to receive. But this (as was remarked in the foregoing number of this paper) is more to be wished than expected, that it may be so considered and examined. Experience on a former occasion teaches us not to be too sanguine in such hopes. It is not yet forgotten that well-grounded apprehensions of imminent danger induced the people of America to form the memorable Congress of 1774. That body recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet it is fresh in our memories how soon the press began to teem with pamphlets and weekly papers against those very measures. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, from a mistaken estimate of consequences, or the undue influence of former attachments, or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were indefatigable in their efforts to pursuade the people to reject the advice of that patriotic Congress. Many, indeed, were deceived and deluded, but the great majority of the people reasoned and decided judiciously; and happy they are in reflecting that they did so.
They considered that the Congress was composed of many wise and experienced men. That, being convened from different parts of the country, they brought with them and communicated to each other a variety of useful information. That, in the course of the time they passed together in inquiring into and discussing the true interests of their country, they must have acquired very accurate knowledge on that head. That they were individually interested in the public liberty and prosperity, and therefore that it was not less their inclination than their duty to recommend only such measures as, after the most mature deliberation, they really thought prudent and advisable.
These and similar considerations then induced the people to rely greatly on the judgment and integrity of the Congress; and they took their advice, notwithstanding the various arts and endeavors used to deter them from it. But if the people at large had reason to confide in the men of that Congress, few of whom had been fully tried or generally known, still greater reason have they now to respect the judgment and advice of the convention, for it is well known that some of the most distinguished members of that Congress, who have been since tried and justly approved for patriotism and abilities, and who have grown old in acquiring political information, were also members of this convention, and carried into it their accumulated knowledge and experience.
It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress, as well as the late convention, have invariably joined with the people in thinking that the prosperity of America depended on its Union. To preserve and perpetuate it was the great object of the people in forming that convention, and it is also the great object of the plan which the convention has advised them to adopt. With what propriety, therefore, or for what good purposes, are attempts at this particular period made by some men to depreciate the importance of the Union? Or why is it suggested that three or four confederacies would be better than one? I am persuaded in my own mind that the people have always thought right on this subject, and that their universal and uniform attachment to the cause of the Union rests on great and weighty reasons, which I shall endeavor to develop and explain in some ensuing papers. They who promote the idea of substituting a number of distinct confederacies in the room of the plan of the convention, seem clearly to foresee that the rejection of it would put the continuance of the Union in the utmost jeopardy. That certainly would be the case, and I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly foreseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet: "FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS."
PUBLIUS.
Quote du jour:
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
Thomas Paine
Author: John Jay
To the People of the State of New York:
Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government.
It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object. But politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties. However extraordinary this new doctrine may appear, it nevertheless has its advocates; and certain characters who were much opposed to it formerly, are at present of the number. Whatever may be the arguments or inducements which have wrought this change in the sentiments and declarations of these gentlemen, it certainly would not be wise in the people at large to adopt these new political tenets without being fully convinced that they are founded in truth and sound policy.
It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities.
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.
Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us. To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.
A strong sense of the value and blessings of union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay, at a time when their habitations were in flames, when many of their citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries and reflections which must ever precede the formation of a wise and wellbalanced government for a free people. It is not to be wondered at, that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer.
This intelligent people perceived and regretted these defects. Still continuing no less attached to union than enamored of liberty, they observed the danger which immediately threatened the former and more remotely the latter; and being pursuaded that ample security for both could only be found in a national government more wisely framed, they as with one voice, convened the late convention at Philadelphia, to take that important subject under consideration.
This convention composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men, undertook the arduous task. In the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool, uninterrupted, and daily consultation; and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any passions except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils.
Admit, for so is the fact, that this plan is only RECOMMENDED, not imposed, yet let it be remembered that it is neither recommended to BLIND approbation, nor to BLIND reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand, and which it certainly ought to receive. But this (as was remarked in the foregoing number of this paper) is more to be wished than expected, that it may be so considered and examined. Experience on a former occasion teaches us not to be too sanguine in such hopes. It is not yet forgotten that well-grounded apprehensions of imminent danger induced the people of America to form the memorable Congress of 1774. That body recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet it is fresh in our memories how soon the press began to teem with pamphlets and weekly papers against those very measures. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, from a mistaken estimate of consequences, or the undue influence of former attachments, or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were indefatigable in their efforts to pursuade the people to reject the advice of that patriotic Congress. Many, indeed, were deceived and deluded, but the great majority of the people reasoned and decided judiciously; and happy they are in reflecting that they did so.
They considered that the Congress was composed of many wise and experienced men. That, being convened from different parts of the country, they brought with them and communicated to each other a variety of useful information. That, in the course of the time they passed together in inquiring into and discussing the true interests of their country, they must have acquired very accurate knowledge on that head. That they were individually interested in the public liberty and prosperity, and therefore that it was not less their inclination than their duty to recommend only such measures as, after the most mature deliberation, they really thought prudent and advisable.
These and similar considerations then induced the people to rely greatly on the judgment and integrity of the Congress; and they took their advice, notwithstanding the various arts and endeavors used to deter them from it. But if the people at large had reason to confide in the men of that Congress, few of whom had been fully tried or generally known, still greater reason have they now to respect the judgment and advice of the convention, for it is well known that some of the most distinguished members of that Congress, who have been since tried and justly approved for patriotism and abilities, and who have grown old in acquiring political information, were also members of this convention, and carried into it their accumulated knowledge and experience.
It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress, as well as the late convention, have invariably joined with the people in thinking that the prosperity of America depended on its Union. To preserve and perpetuate it was the great object of the people in forming that convention, and it is also the great object of the plan which the convention has advised them to adopt. With what propriety, therefore, or for what good purposes, are attempts at this particular period made by some men to depreciate the importance of the Union? Or why is it suggested that three or four confederacies would be better than one? I am persuaded in my own mind that the people have always thought right on this subject, and that their universal and uniform attachment to the cause of the Union rests on great and weighty reasons, which I shall endeavor to develop and explain in some ensuing papers. They who promote the idea of substituting a number of distinct confederacies in the room of the plan of the convention, seem clearly to foresee that the rejection of it would put the continuance of the Union in the utmost jeopardy. That certainly would be the case, and I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly foreseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet: "FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS."
PUBLIUS.
Quote du jour:
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
Thomas Paine
References:
