Senator Harry Reid Feels The Heat

Any elected official that feels save after the 2006 and 2008 elections is ignoring the truth. Democrats may hold the power now, but America’s patience is short. This is not to say that the GOP (in particular Conservatives) will be able to “waltz back into power,” far from it.

The person with one of the largest targets on his back is Senator Harry Reid:

WSJ: Sen. Reid Hits the Ground Running in Uphill Re-Election Bid

As the Senate Leader, Reid has been in the forefront of a Senate with the lowest approval rating in history; an approval rating lower than President Bush. Reid’s repeated awkward visits in front of the media only makes him a bigger target.

We can only hope!

Governor Blagojevich Appoints Former State Attorney General To Fill Obama’s Seat

Oh, what a tangle web we weave when first he practice to deceive. You would think that old Bill Shakespeare lived in Chicago when he wrote those lines.

Defying everyone, embattled Governor Blagojevich announced the appointment of former State Attorney General Roland Burris to fill the vacancy of Obama’s US Senate Seat:

Fox News: Blagojevich Reportedly Picks Replacement for Obama’s Senate Seat

What a way to end 2008! This is just another example of “Chicago, machine-style politics;” a style of politics that the mainstream media did not want to report on during Senator Obama’s run for the White House.

The facts are simple. The Illinois legislators (overwhelming Democrat) failed to act when they had the chance( approving a special election); mostly in fear that the Democrats would lose a special election. In lieu of any other law, the Governor of the State of Illinois has the legal authority to appoint Obama’s successor. There is legal precedence (Powell Vs. McCormick) for Blagojevich actions, and any posturing by people such as Senator Reid, will most likely make the matter worse. Mr. Roland Burris is as qualified as any other candidate to fill Obama’s seat. All concerned would be wise to let the appointment of Burris stand, and focus on removing Blagojevich.

The World Should Be Applauding Israel’s Response Against Hamas

Hamas is up to its old tricks, and once again most of the world is calling on Israel to show restraint, or is looking to America to “intervene.” But what many in the world are forgetting is that Israel is not the aggressor, and it is simple defending itself against an enemy so vile that it would hide like cowards amongst women and children. Israel has stated that this battle will be to the “bitter end,” with the ultimate goal being the destruction of Hamas. Good riddance.

Hamas is not a group of freedom fighters. Hamas is a terror-based organization whose objective is two-fold: the total destruction of the State of Israel and the establishment of a fundamentalist Islamic republic. We are not dealing here with objections by Israel or the West; we are dealing with the fundamental approach and biased declarations of Hamas leaders.

Many news reports are depressingly familiar in that simple facts are twisted, holding Israel responsible for all of the ills of the Middle East while declining to hold Palestinians accountable for their own decisions, which consequential have lead to many of their misfortunes.

Washington Times: Israel Postures to Reshape "Truce"

Zionist Mass Murder: Break the Siege, Defend Gaza!

Reuters: Iran sets up court to try Israelis over Gaza

The Palestine’s have chosen terrorist as their leaders, and have willing accepted an evil alliance with Iran. America’s support of Israel is based on the fact that both Israel and the United States are freely elected democracies, both are fighting for human rights and both are fighting terrorism. The world would be a far better place if Hamas was wiped from the map, which in turn would help to diminish Iran's influence in region.

The Christmas Story

On Christmas Eve millions of families will gather together for the reading of “Twas The Night Before Christmas.” At the end of the story our children will place cookies out for Santa, sprinkle food on the lawn for his reindeer, and scamper off to bed for an anxious night of sleep.

When they wake up early in the morning, they will be overcome with the joy of finding gifts mystically left under the Christmas tree. But wouldn’t be nice if, after they open their presents, they were read another story which brings the true meaning of Christmas into your home.

Luke 2: Versus 1-20, tells the Nativity Story with simplicity, yet manages to convey the great joy that was delivered to man with the birth of Jesus.

The Story of Christmas

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, everyone into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

Merry Christmas and Peace on Earth.

No Matter What Happens, Someone Will Blame Global Warming

Global warming was blamed for everything from beasts gone wild to anorexic whales to the complete breakdown of human society this year -- showing that no matter what it is and where it happens, scientists, explorers, politicians and those who track the Loch Ness Monster are comfortable scapegoating the weather.

FOXNews.com takes a look back at 10 things that global warming allegedly caused — or will no doubt soon be responsible for — as reported in the news around the world in 2008.

1. Cannibalism

In April, media mogul Ted Turner told PBS's Charlie Rose that global warming would make the world 8 degrees hotter in 30 or 40 years. "Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state, like Somalia or Sudan, and living conditions will be intolerable," he said.

Turner blamed global warming on overpopulation, saying "too many people are using too much stuff."

Crops won't grow and "most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals," Turner said.

2. The Death of the Loch Ness Monster

In February, Scotland's Daily Mirror reported that 85-year-old American Robert Rines would be giving up his quest for Scotland's most famous underwater denizen.A World War II veteran, Rines has spent 37 years hunting for Nessie with sonar equipment. In 2008, "despite having hundreds of sonar contacts over the years, the trail has since gone cold and Rines believes that Nessie may be dead, a victim of global warming."

3. Beer Gets More Expensive

In April, the Associated Press reported that global warming was going to hit beer drinkers in the wallet because the cost of barley would increase, driving up the price of a pint.

Jim Salinger, a climate scientist at New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, said Australia would be particularly hard hit as droughts caused a decline in malting barley production in parts of New Zealand and Australia. "It will mean either there will be pubs without beer or the cost of beer will go up," Salinger said at a beer brewer's convention, the AP reported.

4. Pythons Take Over America

Giant Burmese pythons – big enough to eat alligators and deer in a single mouthful – will be capable of living in one-third of continental U.S. as global warming makes more of the country hospitable to the cold-blooded predators, according to an April report from USAToday.com.

The U.S. Geological Survey and the Fish and Wildlife Service investigated the spread of "invasive snakes," like the pythons, brought to the U.S. as pets. The Burmese pythons' potential American habitat would expand by 2100, according to global warming models, the paper reported.

"We were surprised by the map. It was bigger than we thought it was going to be," says Gordon Rodda, zoologist and lead project researcher, told USAToday.com. "They are moving northward, there's no question."

5. Kidney Stones

A University of Texas study said global warming will cause an increase in kidney stones over the next 30 years, the Globe and Mail reported in July.

Scientists predict that higher temperatures will lead to more dehydration and therefore to more kidney stones. "This will come and get you in your home," said Dr. Tom Brikowski, lead researcher and an associate professor at the University of Texas at Dallas. "It will make life just uncomfortable enough that maybe people will slow down and think what they're doing to the climate."

6. Skinny Whales

Japanese scientists, who have claimed that the country's controversial whaling program is all in the name of science, said in August that if they hadn't been going around killing whales, they never would have discovered that the creatures were significantly skinnier than whales killed in the late 1980s, the Guardian reported in August.

The researchers said the study was the first evidence that global warming was harming whales by restricting their food supplies. As water warmed around the Antarctic Peninsula, the krill population shrank by 80 percent as sea ice declined, eliminating much of the preferred food of the minke whale.

The whales studied had lost the same amount of blubber as they would have by starving for 36 days, but the global warming connection couldn't be proven because no krill measurements are taken in different regions.

7. Shark Attacks

A surge in fatal shark attacks was the handiwork of global warming, according to a report in the Guardian in May.

George Burgess of Florida University, a shark expert that maintains an attack database, told the Guardian that shark attacks were caused by human activity. "As the population continues to rise, so does the number of people in the water for recreation. And as long as we have an increase in human hours in the water, we will have an increase in shark bites," he said.

Shark attacks could also be the result of global warming and rising sea temperatures, the Guardian said. "You'll find that some species will begin to appear in places they didn't in the past with some regularity," Burgess said.

8. Black Hawk Down

Although it happened in 1993, the crash of a U.S. military helicopter in Mogadishu that became the film "Black Hawk Down" was blamed on global warming by a Massachusetts congressman in 2008.

"In Somalia back in 1993, climate change, according to 11 three- and four-star generals, resulted in a drought which led to famine,” Rep. Edward Markey told a group of students who had come to the Capitol to discuss global warming, according to CNSNews.com. "That famine translated to international aid we sent in to Somalia, which then led to the U.S. having to send in forces to separate all the groups that were fighting over the aid, which led to Black Hawk Down."

9. Frozen Penguin Babies

Penguin babies, whose water-repellant feathers had not grown in yet, froze to death after torrential rains, National Geographic reported in July.

"Many, many, many of them—thousands of them—were dying," explorer Jon Bowermaster told National Geographic. Witnessing the mass penguin death "painted a clear and grim picture" of global warming.

"It's not just melting ice," Bowermaster said. "It's actually killing these cute little birds that are so popular in the movies."

10. Killer Stingray Invasion

Global warming is going to drive killer stingrays, like the one that killed Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin, to the shores of Britain after a 5-foot -long marbled stingray was captured by fishermen, the Daily Mail reported in June.

A single touch can zap a man with enough electricity to kill, the Mail said, and global warming is bringing the Mediterranean killers north.

"Rising sea temperatures may well have brought an influx of warm water visitors," sea life curator Alex Gerrard told the Mail. "Where there's one electric ray, it's quite likely that there are more."

Original Fox News Story

A Christmas Prayer

I sometimes envy past generations because they had the ability to simply enjoy Christmas for what it is….the birth of Our Savior, Jesus.

The exchanging of gifts was to represent a birthday celebration. Yet somehow the greatest gift is lost in the commercialism that Christmas has become. God’s gift to man….his only Son.

As you sit down for your Christmas dinner this year, take inventory of God’s blessings in your life. We live in an imperfect world, and at times we can feel consumed by all the hate and sorrow we witness. We ask ourselves “what can I do to help?”

You can let God’s grace stay strong in your heart and share his message. Buy one less gift for each person, and give that money to charity. Because this season as many of us agonizes over trying to find a Wii, there are children in this world who will not see their next birthday. As each of us worries about “putting on a few extra pounds,” there are parents struggling to feed their families. And as we gather with family and friends, there sits a person alone…thinking that they are not loved. But if each of us holds ourselves to the standard set by Jesus Christ, and do what ever we can to help our neighbors, we can keep the true meaning of Christmas alive.

So this Christmas, may God’s grace bless your home and shine into heart. May you find your meaning in life through God’s Peace.

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

A Christmas Prayer by Robert Louis Stevenson

Loving Father, Help us remember the birth of Jesus, that we may share in the song of the angels, the gladness of the shepherds, and worship of the wise men.
Close the door of hate and open the door of love all over the world. Let kindness come with every gift and good desires with every greeting. Deliver us from evil by the blessing which Christ brings, and teach us to be merry with clear hearts.
May the Christmas morning make us happy to be thy children, and Christmas evening bring us to our beds with grateful thoughts, forgiving and forgiven, for Jesus' sake. Amen.



Lyrics to a Christmas Canon:

This night
We pray
Our lives
Will show

This dream
He had
Each child
Still knows

We are waiting
We have not forgotten

On this night
On this night
On this very
Christmas night

Pope Attacked As Homophobic…Again

In the age of “victimization” it takes very little to set off the extremist of the world. Whether it is Muslims over a teddy bear named Mohammad, or gay activist participating in violent criminal activities after losing Proposition 8, some people love to play the role of “victim.” Take the case of the Popes most recent speech.

Pope Benedict was accused of “stoking homophobia” after a speech in which he declared that saving humanity from homosexuality was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction. The Pontiff made the remarks in an end-of-year address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration. He said that humanity needed to listen to the “language of creation” to understand the intended roles of man and woman and behavior beyond traditional heterosexual relations was a “destruction of God’s work”.

“The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less," Benedict told scores of prelates gathered in the Vatican's Clementine Hall.

"What’s needed is something like a ‘human ecology,’ understood in the right sense. It’s not simply an outdated metaphysics if the Church speaks of the nature of the human person as man and woman, and asks that this order of creation be respected.”

Fox News: Pope Is Homophobic

One does not have to be Catholic to respect the Pope or embrace the message he is trying to convey. But to imply that the Pope is homophobic is just another example of a “boy crying wolf.” In this modern age, you are considered intolerant merely for speaking out against a lifestyle you feel is harmful. There was no “hate” in the Popes speech, yet the response by many “gay activist” are filled with all manner of hate speech for both the Pope and Catholics:

Pink News: one the most viciously homophobic world leaders on a par with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Robert Mugabe
Democratic Underground: NO SEX WITH WOMEN? WEARS DRESSES? PROTECTS PEDOPHILES? .... it's POPEMAN.. what a GAY hat !!!!
Boxer Rebellion: F**K YOU POPE BENEDICT!!!!!!!

There is a lot more hate where those came from. One only needs to do a blog search using the words “Pope” and “homophobic.” For an added measure, you can include any combination of obscene words, along with “hate,” “bigot,” or just use your imitation, and ta-da, or sorts of vile comments are returned.

In an effort to expose a “perceived hatred,” some gay activists have managed to expose their own prejudices and loathing. To compare the Pope to pure evil such as Ahmadinejad or Mugabe, is nothing more than example of how disconnected from reality some people are. You do not have to agree with the teachings of any religion, but you should stay away from the “theatrics of victimization” if you want to be taken seriously.

Sarah Palin Named Conservative of the Year

EXCLUSIVE Interview With Sarah Palin
by Human Events
12/22/2008

“Thank you, sir. It is an honor to be named your ‘‘Conservative of the Year.’”That’s how Sarah Palin began her third interview this year with HUMAN EVENTS Political Editor John Gizzi. She spoke to Gizzi last April as the first of 16 Republicans he interviewed for HE’s “Veepstakes” election-year feature, and then she sat down with him during the National Governors Association meeting in Philadelphia in July. The Alaska governor last week again spoke to Gizzi, this time about her historic candidacy as the Republican vice presidential nominee as well as about current issues and her future. Veteran Republican political consultant Holly Robichaud, who had arranged the first “Veepstakes” interview between Palin and Gizzi, set up their latest exchange December 12.

Speaking from her office in Juneau, Gov Palin set the scene: “It’s five below, not too cold to snow, which is nice, absolutely beautiful and white and crisp,” and then Gizzi began the interview with her:

GIZZI: Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss singled you out for praise after you campaigned for him and he won re-election in the run-off in Georgia earlier this month. What did you do that was so helpful to Sen. Chambliss, who won by a relatively large margin?

PALIN: Georgia was a blast. People were fired up to re-elect him. It certainly wasn’t me. It was him. When he was on stage, people were cheering. I think the rest of the country, those who were concerned about checks and balances in Washington, D.C., were very excited about the opportunity for me to help out a little bit there. And we made sure we did have those checks and balances that came with his re-election. I was very thankful he was re-elected, and very thankful for my state of Alaska. Saxby is pro-development and wants to make sure that our nation becomes energy independent. Alaska can help. As opposed to the positions his opponent had been taking, he can help us progress toward that end. His opponent [Democrat Jim Martin], I believe, would have worked to lock up more of Alaska.

GIZZI: In campaigning for Sen. Chambliss, you brought back a lot of conservatives who had been critical of him for voting for the Wall Street bailout [of financial institutions]. Would you have favored the Wall Street bailout and voted as Sen. Chambliss did?

PALIN: I would have done what the GOP [senators] did yesterday and said ‘no’ to additional bailout efforts of one industry [the automobile industry, whose proposed federal bailout was stopped in the Senate December 11]. Picking winners and losers in Washington, D.C., is a dangerous thing to do when you’re talking about a system that supposed to be based on free enterprise. When you talk about rewarding for work ethic and good management decisions and then consequences are the results of the opposite of that, and those decisions lead to some mistakes that are made in some industries, taxpayer bailouts should not be looked to as the be-all, end-all solutions. But back then, weeks ago, when that initial bailout [of financial institutions] was proposed, remember, it was considered at the time a rescue and not necessarily a bailout. Without having as much information as everyone has now, I did support that initial effort that was going to come from Congress. Of course, we saw [Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben] Bernanke and others appear to change the rules right away, it seemed like, after that initial rescue plan or bailout was given the green light, then everybody in the public, including me, started hearing that the rules were changing on where those dollars would go and what the criterion would be. Unfortunately, that leads to distrust of decisions our politicians make on our behalf and bureaucrats make on our behalf. Now the situation has changed, and I think the GOP did the right thing yesterday in saying, “Look, we still want more information before one industry -- in this case, the auto industry -- gets more taxpayer assistance until everybody knows what those dollars would be used for and how it will lead to success in this industry.”

GIZZI: So you stand with Sen. [Bob] Corker [Tenn.] and other Republicans who stopped the auto industry bailout in the Senate?

PALIN: I do. Once bitten, twice shy. We learned a lesson, at least being amenable -- if not enthused -- to the idea all those weeks ago to the first rescue plan. But then the rules changed quickly, and more information was revealed that perhaps Congress and the bureaucrats in the Treasury Department not having a good grasp on what the problem was and how taxpayer funds would solve any of the problems. That’s caused a lot of concern and caution on my part and the part of the Republican Party.

GIZZI: Indiana Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels has spoken out against the bailout of states that [California] Gov. [Arnold] Schwarzenegger and other governors have called for. As a governor yourself and an active member of the National Governors Association, where do you stand on the bailout of states?

PALIN: Every state, like every community in the United States, comes to Congress with its list of infrastructure needs. Alaska is going to join every other state with a governor’s list. In fact, I’ve looked at every other governor’s list of infrastructure needs that’s presented to Congress. It’s up to Congress, because Congress holds the purse strings, to decide how some of those projects are going to be funded. Alaska’s projects are going to be in the nation’s best interests. They will be infrastructure that will build gas lines and build that infrastructure up that will lead to energy production to allow us to become energy independent. We aren’t asking for things like “Bridges to Nowhere.” But, in speaking with Gov. Schwarzenegger about this, he has said it’s not his intention to ask for a bailout that is based on his state’s management decisions that have led to some problems in that state. In Alaska, we’re fortunate. We have a surplus. We have money put aside for the last few years, waiting for a ‘rainy day’ when the economy wasn’t as strong. We are in a good position, so we are not asking for, nor should we ask for, a bailout from the ‘feds.’ But we will, along with every other state, have our list of infrastructure projects and roads and very basic tools that will lead to energy production.

GIZZI: For my birthday this year, friends gave me the new biography of Andrew Jackson [American Lion, by Jon Meacham]. One of the passages that reminded me of you is when the author is explaining how vilified Jackson was and says, ‘He was the first President to come from the common people, not from an educated elite, and he never ceased to see himself as their champion.’ Is that something you can identify with and do you think the fact you had a similar background to Jackson’s was a reason for some of the criticism you received from some of the punditocracy and the media in general?

PALIN: Maybe initially it is a hindrance for someone starting out. But once the electorate knows what that candidate’s convictions are and positions are, I don’t think that matters. You just prefaced your question with the fact that I didn’t come from that ‘stock’. I got my education from the University of Idaho because that’s what I could afford. It was the least-expensive school that offered the programs I knew would benefit me in my future. My Dad was a school teacher and had four kids in college at about the same time. It didn’t occur to me to ask my parents to pay for my college education. We all worked through school and paid for schools that we could afford. I still got a great education. No, I don’t come from the self-proclaimed ‘movers and shakers’ group and that’s fine with me. It’s caused me, or rather, allowed me, to work harder and pulled myself up by my bootstraps without anyone else helping me. I think it allows me to be in touch with the vast majority of Americans who are in the same position that I am. That is desiring government to be on our side and not against us. And that means, in a lot of ways, for government to get out of the way to allow our families and our businesses to keep more of what they produce, to meet our own priorities.

My own upbringing and what I am today -- with my husband, in a blue-collar job that he has -- allow me a great connection with the vast majority of Americans who live and work and are trying to raise our families.

GIZZI: What was the biggest mistake made in the ’08 campaign?

PALIN: The biggest mistake made was that I could have called more shots on this: the opportunities that were not seized to speak to more Americans via media. I was not allowed to do very many interviews, and the interviews that I did were not necessarily those I would have chosen. But I was so thankful to have the opportunity to run with John McCain that I was not going to argue with the strategy decisions that some of his people were making regarding the media contacts.But if I would have been in charge, I would have wanted to speak to more reporters because that’s how you get your message out to the electorate.

GIZZI: And what was the most important lesson you learned from the campaign?

PALIN: The campaign was 99.9% amazing and invigorating and inspiring. But looking back, there were so many things that were outside of my control. I was in a campaign in which I did not know the people individually running the campaign. So I had to put my life, my career, my family, and my reputation in their hands. That’s kind of a scary thing to do when you don’t know the people you are working with. Now I have all the faith in the world in Sen. McCain and his family. But some of the folks around him I did not know, and so it was a kind of a risky thing for me to put my faith in the decisions they were making on my behalf.As an administrator, as a chief executive of a state, I am not used to that. I am used to proving my abilities by calling the shots. Then I know the buck stops with me. I made the decisions, and I’m responsible. When others are making decisions for me, as they were in the campaign, and I am the one to live with the fallout from the decisions that were made on my behalf, that is something I am not very comfortable with.

GIZZI: Do you want to give me any names of people?

PALIN: No. But they’re folks who have done this before. Of course, I haven’t done this on a national level before.But my reliance on seeking God’s direction in all that I do -- that is good enough for me. And others who have a different worldview and different strategy on messaging and such, I would like to have the opportunity to prove to them that my gut instincts were going to be quite adequate.

GIZZI: Are you getting a lot of requests to speak around the country for candidates, as you did for Sen. Chambliss?

PALIN: I’m getting a lot of requests to speak. But right now my focus is on Alaska and a lot of the energy projects we are working on.

GIZZI: Who is your role model?

PALIN: Susan B. Anthony. I have great respect there for the history. She was a pro-life feminist and those things that she stood for, and she was so far ahead of her time. It amazes me.

GIZZI: You made it clear in our interviews earlier this year that you were not close to fellow Republicans Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young from your state, both of whom you said had a different vision of Alaska’s dealings with the federal government than you did. Were you pleased with the election of Democrat Mark Begich who defeated Stevens and with the re-election of Rep. Young?

PALIN: I met yesterday with Sen.-elect Begich to see that we are on the same page as we move forward as he starts his new job representing Alaska. I thought that Sen. Stevens was going to be re-elected, and it was so close, and that if he were to step aside because he was convicted [on corruption charges], then I would get to appoint a Republican. So I was kind of surprised at the outcome there. It is what it is, and I wish Sen. Begich well. We’ll work well together. He’s going to be in the majority party and that’s all the more reason for Mark Begich and me to work closely together. We will.

GIZZI: Will you run for higher office, such as the U.S. Senate from Alaska in 2010 [when more moderate Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s seat is up]?

PALIN: That’s not in my sites. There’s so much to do as governor.

Read Ann Coulter's EXCLUSIVE HUMAN EVENTS column, Sarah Palin: Conservative of the Year.

The New York Times Presents: A “Fact-Less” Fairytale

I was raised to believe that all fairytales started with the statement “Once Upon A Time…..”, I was wrong. It has become apparent that in the 21st Century fairytales tend to appear within the pages “The New York Times.”

What is notable about the most recent New York Times hit piece on President Bush is not what it did “report,” but what it either failed to mention or what it downplayed:

NY Times: It Was President Bush's Fault

What this fairytale is lacking are the true villains. Nowhere it this story do we read about the details involving such names as Frank, Meeks, Waters, and Dodd, and what role they played in this meltdown. Nowhere in this story do we read about the repeated attempts by Republicans such as outgoing Senator John Sununu, to provide an appropriate oversight of the industry. And what cannot be found anywhere in the New York Times piece are all the attempts by the Bush administration to prevent this crisis; and the repeated roadblocks put up by the leading recipients of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac campaign contributions……….the Democratic Party.

So from now on, when you do find it necessary to read the New York Times, just start each story with "Once Upon A Time....." You will enjoy the story more.

Bailout Hypocrisy: UAW Country Club

The media has made it a point to talk about the salaries and composition packages of most of the senior executives at Ford, Chrysler, and GM, they ignore stories such as the billions dollars spent by the union to support Democratic candidates, or the billions more thrown away on a union temple:

$27-Million UAW-Owned Country Club Includes Golf Course, Condos, Swimming Pools

The excuses keep coming, and one thing is clear, that both the UAW and the auto manufacture management are guilty of excess. Yet the only solution that Congress and the White House can come up with.........another bailout.

Silent Night, Holy Night

Encore Post

There truly is a Spirit of Christmas that transcends the worldly events that somehow occupy mans being on Earth. One such event is war. There is no more brutal expression of man’s ignorance then the conflicts that have littered our history. Yet, even in war, “love’s pure light” will shine.

On December 24th, 1914, heavenly peace did descend upon the trenches of World War One, when the soldiers of the Germany, French, and English Armies castaway their hate, and for a brief moment in time found “Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards Men.”

On that cold Christmas Eve night, Germany soldiers began decorating their trenches by placing candles on trees while singing Christmas Carols. One such carol was “Stille nacht, heilige nacht.” The British soldiers responded by singing the English version…….. “Silent Night, Holy Night.”

Eventually both sides would walk across “No Man’s Land” and exchange greetings and small gifts. Little did Father Josef Mohr, the composer of “Silent Night,” know that one day the words he penned would, even if only for a short time, help stop the madness of war and bring enemies together in peace:

Silent night, holy night
All is calm, all is bright
Round yon Virgin Mother and Child
Holy Infant so tender and mild
Sleep in heavenly peace
Sleep in heavenly peace

Silent night, holy night!
Shepherds quake at the sight
Glories stream from heaven afar
Heavenly hosts sing Alleluia!
Christ, the Saviour is born
Christ, the Saviour is born

Silent night, holy night
Son of God, love's pure light
Radiant beams from Thy holy face
With the dawn of redeeming grace
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth "

Newsbusted: Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich gets in trouble --Barack Obama insists he is not connected to corrupt gov --Colin Powell vs. Rush Limbau

Interview with Michael Steele

Michael Steele is one of many prominent Republicans seeking the chairmanship of the RNC. This is a transcript of a recent interview he held with CNS News.

Q&A with Michael Steele, Candidate for RNC Chairman
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, chairman of GOPAC, the Republican Party's political action committee (CNSNews.com/ Penny Starr)

(CNSNews.com) – Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele is already working to put Republicans in office as chairman of GOPAC, the party's political action committee.

Now he hopes to take the helm of the Republican National Committee (RNC), a chairmanship he is vying for against as many as nine other party loyalists.

A self-described "pro-life Catholic," Steele has been criticized for some remarks he made during his run for the Senate in 2006 and his affiliation with the pro-abortion group, Republican Leadership Council.

Steele is no stranger to the national political scene, having grown up in Washington, D.C. He earned his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center and was the first black to be elected chairman of his state's party. He also was the first black to be elected to statewide office in Maryland.

He spoke with CNSNews.com on Friday to share his views and to say how he would lead the Republican Party leading up to the 2010 and 2012 elections.

CNSNews.com: Would you support a state law in Maryland that bans same-sex unions?

Steele: Sure, we've been fighting that fight in Maryland now for three sessions of our legislature, and it is very clear, we've stated very clearly and reemphasized the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman – and have taken the argument directly to the people, and the legislators so far have not been able to muster the votes to put that constitutional amendment in place. They've looked to Massachusetts and Connecticut and other states that have tried – and some cases been successful and other cases not – to figure out the ground game, and each time we come back with the core argument. I think that is going to be the battleground for many states and the Republican Party in my view – not only in terms of having a national voice on the issue where you can speak more generically, but you can speak specifically state by state reflecting back the values and the culture of the communities that make up that state. And clearly we saw in California with Proposition 8 a very clear signal by the voters there. And I love how 52 or 53 percent is an insignificant number. It's an insignificant number when you lose.

CNSNews.com: The 2008 Republican Party platform supports the constitutional amendment to protect marriage as a union between one man and a woman. Do you support that?

Steele: Yes, as chairman of the party I absolutely would support that, because it is in our platform. It is something that the political and activist members of the Republican Party in convention have put into the platform. My personal caution has always been thinking twice and being very careful when you start tinkering around with the federal Constitution. Certain matters are better fought state by state. But when you have in place the desire for a national mandate to bring about clarity, then it's a legitimate point of discussion. So, our platform calls for that, and as chairman I absolutely will support it.

CNSNews.com: On another Republican platform issue that has come up repeatedly over the years since it was first put in place during the Ronald Reagan presidential nomination. You've been asked about it before, including during an interview with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2006, and he asked you about the abortion issue. Also, on the Web site for Christy Todd Whitman's company (The Whitman Strategy Group) that you help found the Republican Leadership Council, which falls into the pro-abortion side of the issue. Let me read to you from that transcript.

Transcript from "Meet the Press," Oct. 29, 2006

Russert: Another issue that has emerged in the campaign. Here's the latest headline. "Religious leaders and abortion foes are pumping more than $140,000 into the final weeks of the Maryland U.S. Senate contest to motivate 'values voters' by elevating such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage. National Right to Life's political action committee plans to run radio commercials on [Michael] Steele's behalf ... and has spent more than $72,000 supporting [his] candidacy with ads and mail." The National Abortion Rights Action League supporting your campaign, Mr. Cardin. The issue is being engaged. And let me ask each of you. Mr. Steele, if you're a United States Senator, would you vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion?
Steele: I don't--vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion? I think we'd have to have that get to the Supreme Court, wouldn't we? I haven't seen that bill proposed. I don't think...
Russert: That's been introduced in the Senate.
Steele: I don't think anyone's going to propose that this day.
Russert: So you wouldn't do that?
Steele: No.
Russert: Would, would you encourage--would you hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade?
Steele: I think that that's a matter that's going to rightly belong to the courts to decide ultimately whether or not that, that issue should be addressed. The, the Court has taken the position, which I agree, stare decisis, which means that the law is as it is and, and so this is a matter that's ultimately going to be adjudicated at the states. We're seeing that. The states are beginning to decide for themselves on, on this and a host of other issues. And the Supreme Court would ultimately decide that.
Russert: But you hope that the Court keeps Roe v. Wade in place?
Steele: I think the Court will evaluate the law as society progresses, as the Court is supposed to do.
Russert: But what's your position? Do you want them to sustain it or overturn it?
Steele: Well, I think, I think, I think Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade is a, is a matter that should've been left to the states to decide, ultimately. But it, it is where it is today, and the courts will ultimately decide whether or not this, this gets addressed by the states, goes back to the states in some form or they overturn it outright.
Russert: Is it your desire that they keep it in place?
Steele: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.

CNSNews.com: OK, the Republican Party Platform says: "Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental, individual right to life that cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life."

Do you agree with that?

Steele: Again, I am a pro-life Roman Catholic. And I have always been that way. I have always viewed that issue from that perspective. What you saw in the exchange with me and the late, great host of "Meet the Press" was two Catholic boys doing a little jockeying, because I knew exactly where Tim was trying to go. I remember saying to him when we were on commercial break, 'You know exactly what the deal is. Why are you trying to trick out something here? You're a good Catholic boy. Behave yourself. So we were joking about it. The long and short of it is what I was trying to say, and I admit, probably inarticulately in doing so at the time, that the court would not necessarily just willy nilly change Roe vs. Wade. The court believes in the concept of the law having grown its own legs … the court would need a case to come before it that would move it to change. So I was trying that point. The court is not going to just up and change Roe vs. Wade no matter the number of justices who support its overturn, because those justices – if they are true Republican picks who honor tradition of the court and who are strict constructionists – they are not going to willy nilly do that to fulfill some political agenda. So that's what I was trying to say. My personal view is Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided, which is why I made the point that it should have been left to the individual states to have that battle and to have the communities decide for themselves what they would pay for, what they wouldn't pay for, what they would accept and what they won't accept, very much like what is being played on with the gay marriage bill. And so, my point was that from a judicial standpoint – and this is what I get for being a lawyer I guess – but from a judicial standpoint, nothing presented to the court so far to move it to act to strike Roe vs. Wade.

The case has not come before it yet. You have to fight for a decision like that. The votes are there. So why hasn't it happened? Because these judges, the five-justice majority, are strict constructionists, and they are not going to willy nilly decide on a political whim. So that was the point with Tim. With respect to the (Republican Party) platform, again, I go back to my basic point. I don't need to be chairman of the party to support that plank.
That is something that is paramount for me, because you are talking about the sanctity of all life, born and the unborn. And I think it's important for this country to move itself away from this culture of death that we've sort of fallen into, as noted by (Pope) John Paul II. And I think it is important that our political leadership – that has the opportunity to use the bully pulpit – to speak to that sanctity of life, and it should do so. As we move to the beginnings of a new administration where the president of the country has a very, very clear view on matters related to abortion, very, very pro-abortion, that it is going to be incumbent upon Republicans, incumbent upon those who are pro-life, who hold the sanctity of life dear to be able to rise and speak to that and to challenge what I think are going to be some really dark legislation that's going to come out of (the 111^th) Congress under this administration.

CNSNews.com: Ronald Reagan, and most recently John McCain, supported eliminating the Department of Education. Do you agree?

Steele: You know, I'm going to be very honest with you, because that's how I try to approach these things. I've been back and forth on that, and I'll tell you why. At the end of the day, I think my view is, the more we empower school systems within states to educate, and the more we move away from having this subtle finger sort of poking you in the eye and poking you in the back, and trying to direct outcomes, I think the better off we're going to be longer-term. Because individual communities know how to educate their kids, they have a sense of who's performing well and why, who's struggling and who isn't. So let them put in play, let's take those federal dollars and create grants back to the states. We're paying the federal tax and a portion of that money goes to this current department – let's break that up and put those dollars back to work on the ground. The bureaucracy that it is right now, I see streamlining, and, look, I'm talking about a guy behind the desk with a checkbook.

CNSNews.com: So, yes or no, would you support eliminating the Department of Education?

Steele: I don't know, to be honest, I don't know. I mean, and you know what? Anyone who gives you a yes or no answer I think is being a little disingenuous, because you don't know. Things have changed from 25 years ago. And, I think, if you are going down that road, you need to take a wholesale analysis and look at it, not in the bureaucratic way but just, okay, what is the practical outcome we're trying to reach here? Do we just want to feel good by eliminating the Department of Education? Or are we trying to reach some practical outcome on behalf of students, and will this further that outcome? And I think I want to do that before I said yes about something like that.

CNSNews.com: Under George W. Bush, his No Child Left Behind program increased spending by the Department of Education. Did you support his No Child Left Behind policy?

Steele: I supported the idea, and I've criticized the implementation and the execution, because again you've created a bureaucracy in which you have put unfunded mandates on state education systems that they can't meet. And so, to that extent, it is not productive, and it is not useful, it is not helpful. Nor is it helpful when we, as we do with most of these situations, we impose by mandate federal policy, and no one goes back and revisits the policy, and sees whether or not it's working, and what impact is it having on students … and the teachers of this country. I did a year-and-a-half long study of our educational system in Maryland, and I sat down and spoke with over 1,000 teachers face-to-face – face-to-face, with over 1,000 teachers, and every one of them … would tell me that their problem isn't so much with the idea of No Child Left Behind, because it helps to push the kids to a certain reading level and standard. But they're not looking at the impact it's having on the teachers, that they're now forced to teach to test, basically. So they spend three-quarters of the year preparing these kids to take this one exam. And then they squeeze in everything else the kids need to learn in the last quarter of the year. That's not education. And so, from my point of view, if you're going to do something like that, then let's incorporate the teachers and get their input and make sure we're doing it right so that they get the benefit of it so that they can pass that benefit on to the kids.

CNSNews.com: The Republican group rebuildtheparty.com has a 10 point plan to rebuild the party, with the No. 1 priority being using the Internet as a tool. Do you agree?

Steele: Oh, absolutely. I'm one of the biggest techno-geeks out here. You'll find me on the net at all hours of the night surfin,' bloggin,' finding out what's goin' on. Doing the Twitter thing, doing the Facebook thing, and it's time to be connected. How else can I be effective in my leadership of GOPAC and ultimately my leadership of the party if I don't know what this generation is doing, how they communicate with each other? How do I reach them if I'm sending them a piece of mail, and they're getting their mail on their telephone? So the question begs itself, what does the party do to make itself technologically relevant? Well, first off, you've got to recognize that times have changed and we've gotta' catch up to those times. But then, not only do we catch up, how do we improve on the times, how do we create the next level? And that's something that I want to see us do. I want to take some of the smartest minds in technology and bring them into the RNC and have them work with me to create a new strategy, a new paradigm, if you will, on how we reach voters and how we message our issues, so that we're defining the landscape for us, and we're not being defined, or allowing ourselves to be defined, by our political opponents.

So I'm looking for a technological renaissance for the GOP, where we're going to bring in all kinds of things, creating an intra-net among the state parties so that we can share practices and new ideas – but also learn where there are mistakes and pitfalls that we need to be aware of. And having that communication, that dialogue, that relationship established among each other, I think better prepares us to go out and reach new voters, and certainly those younger voters who are of a 30-second soundbite mindset. If I can't reach you and communicate to you within 30 to 45 seconds, you're not hearing me. And so we've got to sharpen that tool so that we can do just that.

CNSNews.com: Did you support George W. Bush's Medicare prescription plan?

Steele: No. It's just further expansion of government. I know a lot of people who say it works and everybody's happy with it, but it's more money. It's expanding the size of bureaucracy. It's putting another layer of government between me and my wallet. I didn't appreciate it then, and I don't appreciate it now. Instead of focusing on a genuine, legitimate health care strategy that would make it affordable, that would be market-based, that would create the appropriate incentives for the insurance companies to stop acting like numb nuts, and the pharmaceutical industry stop acting so defensively, and actually coordinating and working, Lord knows the trial lawyers. Getting all these folks in the room and developing a comprehensive health care strategy. We created another silo in which we're going to spend more money, and we're going to create another level of bureaucracy. So I think we need to re-think that strategy, and I think the party has an appropriate voice to do that.

CNSNews.com: Did you support the comprehensive immigration reform proposed during the Bush administration?

Steele: Don't even get me started on that one. This is a classic case of looking around to find that no one's standing with you. The short answer is, no, I did not. The right answer, I think, the administration should have come up with was border security first. And let me give you an example. If you and I are in a boat in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay, and the boat springs a leak, what's the first thing we need to do? Stop the leak. Plug the hole. Now if we start trying to bail water out of the boat, or push it to one side of the boat, or effectively deal with the water in the boat, the boat's still going to sink, because you haven't addressed the core problem, which is you've got a hole in your boat. The same is true with immigration. The core problem is that you've got a hole in the fence. Plug the hole. Use technology, use manpower, use all the strategies that you need to secure the national borders of this country. And then we can talk about the 12 million people who are here illegally, what we're going to do. I think America will be much more receptive to that conversation knowing that no more are coming in and that the hole has been closed. And then we can deal effectively with the water in the boat.

CNSNewsom: How do we deal with the 12 million who are here illegally?

Steele: Well, that's something for the national debate. There are any number of ways that you have to deal with that. Do you want to create a pathway to citizenship? Are you talking amnesty? Ronald Reagan did amnesty. He did the first amnesty bill. A lot of people tend to forget that. In 1986, what was the problem? There was no effective strategy to deal with what? The hole in the fence. They kept coming. And 20 years later, what are we looking at? 12 million additional people, the hole has gotten bigger, and the problem hasn't gone away. America's response to amnesty was, 'Not again, if you don't fix the hole. If you don't close down that border and make sure that no one else is getting over the fence, or under the fence, or through the fence.' That's what everyone sees as the problem. It's not the individuals who are here, necessarily. It's the ones who are still coming in, because our border is porous. Every other country protects its sovereignty, and no one cracks a peep. The United States rises up and says, 'We too shall protect the sovereignty of this nation by protecting our borders,' and everyone looks at us like we're enemies of the state. Well, we'll keep looking that way because we're going to deal with this issue, and we're going to effectively do what we need to do as Americans to make sure the integrity of this country, its internal integrity, is secure. And then we can talk about everything else. Everything else -- jobs, programs, employers -- all that stuff you can deal with much more effectively, because now you're dealing with a smaller pool of folks because there are no more coming in.

CNSNews.com: What is the first thing you would do as the new chairman of the Republican National Committee?

Steele: I would embrace our base and welcome them back to the party and tell them now is time to roll our sleeves and get to work to building a farm team, raising money, organizing our precincts, looking at the strategies that we're going to need to unfold if we get into re-apportioning and re-districting in 2009 and 2010. I would say to our donors, okay, you've sat on the fence long enough. It's time to get in the game to help us rebuild and strengthen this party financially so that we can put in place those strategies and do that technology on the Internet and reach those voters that you want us to reach. I think the next chairman is going to have to begin by making sure that the base stands with him or her and making sure that they've got the charge to lead forward. And then you begin to deal with all the internal stuff, the operational changes you need to make, to put in place this new infrastructure. Part of that for me is going to be devolving the activities of the RNC back to the states, empowering individual states to be the political power horse for winning elections. Washington does not know how to run a campaign in Wisconsin or New Mexico, or Maryland, or New York. But New York, New Mexico, Maryland, or Wisconsin do know how to run those campaigns. So let's trust the leadership of those states, and hold them accountable, but trust them to help build this operation. And we will support them, we will empower them and we will, again, using things like the intra-net, find those best practices so that they can do the jobs that they need to do.

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

On the same day that President-elect Obama announced key appoints to his energy team, including a newly created position to focus on addressing “man-made, climate change,” a new report was released disputing the cause.

Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore, as documented in a new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report:

EPW Senate Report

Whether you agree or disagree with the cause of “global warming,” or for that matter if there is even a crisis to be concerned about, you would think that every media outlet would carry some kind of story about the report. You would be wrong.

Run a search for “Senate Minority Report dissent,” and you will find that not one major news outlet carried the story. The United States of America is about to enact laws that will cripple its economy (worst than it is now), and the only response we can get from the Fourth Estate is the sounds of crickets chirping.

Is it any wonder that the NY Times, NBC, and other media outlets are losing viewership and laying off employees?

Republican Cao Defeats The Corrupt Jefferson

In the wake of a Conservative victory in Georgia, Republican's continued their winning streak with the defeat of Democratic incumbent William Jefferson by newcomer Anh "Joseph" Cao for Congress:

Yahoo News: Cao Defeats Jefferson

Some in the press have described Cao as a moderate, even though Mr. Cao’s only real platform position is his strong opposition to abortion. And that makes him a moderate how?

The fact that Jefferson’s defeat was deemed a “surprise” by some in the media, as well as the Democratic Party, once again demonstrates how out of touch both are with Americans. I see Mr. Cao’s election as a statement by the voters that "the content of a persons character" does matter. However, leave to some in the press to “spin it” this Democratic defeat as something entirely different.

Adam Nossiter, of the NY Times, took a ridiculous position in an effort to try to explain Jefferson’s defeat:

NY Times: Angry White Voters Elect A Vietnam Immigrant?

Angry white voters, combined with disenfranchised Black voters, were the reasons for the demise of Jefferson? Forget the fact that Jefferson was ethically challenged at best, and Cao was seen as a well-respected community organizer, who promised to return integrity to the Congressional seat that Jefferson tarnished. Moreover, how did Congressman-elect Cao’s pro-life position play into his election?

This election was not an issue of race, either on the part of the voters or the candidates, and any inference (such as the one brought forth by the New York Times) is idiotic! This election was about character, and should be seen as an affirmation that the electorate would rather have an inexperience honest person representing them, than an experienced crook.

Congratulations to Congressman-elect Cao and his family.

Newsbusted: Big Three beg for bailout --OJ's conviction --Computer virus strikes Facebook users --Carlos Mencia promises to go after Barack Obama

Newsflash: Illinois Governor Arrested On Federal Corruption Charges

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff John Harris were arrested on December 9, 2008, in Chicago on two counts each of federal corruption charges stemming from allegations Blagojevich was trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's vacated Senate seat to the highest bidder.

The arrest is part of a three-year probe of "pay-to-play politics" in the governor's administration. The criminal complaint by the FBI says each man was arrested on two charges of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and solicitation of bribery.

The charges also relate to allegations that Blagojevich and Harris schemed with previously convicted defendants and Obama associates Antonin Rezko, Stuart Levine, Ali Ata and others to arrange financial benefits in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions, state employment, state contracts and access to state funds.

Chicago Tribune: Governor Rod Blagojevich and Aide Arrested

The Character of Conservatism: Part Three

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

- James Madison

Conservatives believe that the foundation of the United States is built on the words, deeds, and principals of our Founding Fathers. We believe that it is the duty of each generation to not only secure the independence passed down to them, but if need be, fight to ensure that future generations are able to live in liberty as it was originally intended. The Declaration of Independence is our soul, the Constitution our heart, and the Federalist Papers our conscience.

As Thomas Jefferson is considered to be the Father of the Declaration of Independence, James Madison holds a similar distinction in regards to The Constitution; therefore it would seem logical that we should look to him when conflicts arise from the interpretation of The Constitution.

Madison became alarmed almost immediately after The Constitution was submitted for ratification, and for good reason. Madison felt that there was an attempt by some to wander away from the original purpose of the document, in particular, their desire for a stronger, centralized form of government. So alarmed was Madison, that along with Alexander Hamilton (first Secretary of the Treasury) and John Jay (first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), the three men wrote a series of essays, under the pseudonym "Publius,” that would be come known as the “Federalist Papers.”

The Federalist Papers were not only meant to serve as a rallying cry for the ratification of The Constitution, but also spell out the true meaning of the document. Just as some have taken a turn away from the original intent of The Constitution, there have been some who feel that The Federalist Papers are “passé,” not longer valid in our modern time; a position I strongly disagree with.

What Federalist Paper #45 is yelling out to America is that we are a stronger nation when we are united by purpose that serves our greater security as a people (such as times of war and conflict), while at the same time respecting the sovereignty of the individual States, and that the United States of America should not be looked upon as indistinguishable mass of land.

Federalist Paper #45, may not be the most important of the Federalist Papers, a right usually reserved for Federalist Paper #10 and Federalist Paper #51, both written by Madison. But #45, talks about the struggle that would exist between the power of the Federal government and the power of the State government, and where the lines of authority should be drawn.

“The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State” – Federalist Paper #45

Federalist Papers – Number 45

The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the United States to the State Governments Considered for the Independent Journal

To the People of the State of New York:

HAVING shown that no one of the powers transferred to the federal government is unnecessary or improper, the next question to be considered is, whether the whole mass of them will be dangerous to the portion of authority left in the several States. The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form?

It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us. Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.

We have seen, in all the examples of ancient and modern confederacies, the strongest tendency continually betraying itself in the members, to despoil the general government of its authorities, with a very ineffectual capacity in the latter to defend itself against the encroachments. Although, in most of these examples, the system has been so dissimilar from that under consideration as greatly to weaken any inference concerning the latter from the fate of the former, yet, as the States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty, the inference ought not to be wholly disregarded. In the Achaean league it is probable that the federal head had a degree and species of power, which gave it a considerable likeness to the government framed by the convention. The Lycian Confederacy, as far as its principles and form are transmitted, must have borne a still greater analogy to it. Yet history does not inform us that either of them ever degenerated, or tended to degenerate, into one consolidated government. On the contrary, we know that the ruin of one of them proceeded from the incapacity of the federal authority to prevent the dissensions, and finally the disunion, of the subordinate authorities. These cases are the more worthy of our attention, as the external causes by which the component parts were pressed together were much more numerous and powerful than in our case; and consequently less powerful ligaments within would be sufficient to bind the members to the head, and to each other.

In the feudal system, we have seen a similar propensity exemplified. Notwithstanding the want of proper sympathy in every instance between the local sovereigns and the people, and the sympathy in some instances between the general sovereign and the latter, it usually happened that the local sovereigns prevailed in the rivalship for encroachments. Had no external dangers enforced internal harmony and subordination, and particularly, had the local sovereigns possessed the affections of the people, the great kingdoms in Europe would at this time consist of as many independent princes as there were formerly feudatory barons. The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other. The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them.

On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members. The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States. There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter. The members of the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments of thirteen and more States, the justices of peace, officers of militia, ministerial officers of justice, with all the county, corporation, and town officers, for three millions and more of people, intermixed, and having particular acquaintance with every class and circle of people, must exceed, beyond all proportion, both in number and influence, those of every description who will be employed in the administration of the federal system. Compare the members of the three great departments of the thirteen States, excluding from the judiciary department the justices of peace, with the members of the corresponding departments of the single government of the Union; compare the militia officers of three millions of people with the military and marine officers of any establishment which is within the compass of probability, or, I may add, of possibility, and in this view alone, we may pronounce the advantage of the States to be decisive. If the federal government is to have collectors of revenue, the State governments will have theirs also. And as those of the former will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous, whilst those of the latter will be spread over the face of the country, and will be very numerous, the advantage in this view also lies on the same side.

It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States. Indeed it is extremely probable, that in other instances, particularly in the organization of the judicial power, the officers of the States will be clothed with the correspondent authority of the Union. Should it happen, however, that separate collectors of internal revenue should be appointed under the federal government, the influence of the whole number would not bear a comparison with that of the multitude of State officers in the opposite scale. Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State. The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them.

The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens; and the latter will be no more bound than the States themselves have been, to pay the quotas respectively taxed on them. Had the States complied punctually with the articles of Confederation, or could their compliance have been enforced by as peaceable means as may be used with success towards single persons, our past experience is very far from countenancing an opinion, that the State governments would have lost their constitutional powers, and have gradually undergone an entire consolidation. To maintain that such an event would have ensued, would be to say at once, that the existence of the State governments is incompatible with any system whatever that accomplishes the essental purposes of the Union.

PUBLIUS.

Federalist Paper 45 was meant to serve as a reminder that The Constitution delegated a few, well defined powers to the Federal Government. Federalist Paper 45 was also meant to reinforce with Americans that the State powers were numerous and indefinite, and that the closer the people are to the government (in miles and principal), the stronger liberty is.

“The Constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers.” (citing from the Federalist Paper #45)

Justice Joseph Story (Supreme Court – 1891)