A Man Finds The Hardest Way To Get A Musical Dedicated To Himself

"It is a strange perversion of ideas...that men should be deemed corrupt and criminal for becoming proprietors in the funds of their country..."

- Alexander Hamilton

Eventually, the time had come for Alexander Hamilton, the secretary of the treasury, to pick his first ever assistant secretary. Hamilton chose his friend named William Duer, but he had his fair share of issues. Duer had a case of moral myopia. Moral Myopia means that someone has trouble distinguishing between personal gain and public gain and an example of moral myopia could be someone cheating on a test and having no remorse. He even let some of Hamilton's plans slip to some outside sources. It eventually got to Senator William Maclay, who said, "Nobody doubts but all commotion originated form the Treasury. But the fault is laid on Duer." Alexander Hamilton was known for his good judge of character, but he fell victim to the human nature of being blinded by friendship. Duer definitely proved to be detrimental to the reputation of Hamilton. 

Hamilton eventually had to meet with a man named George Beckwith. Hamilton made sure that Beckwith knew that "the sentiments of the most enlightened men in this country. They are those of George Washington, I can confidently assure you, as well as of a great majority in the Senate." He tried to bargain with Beckwith. Hamilton believed that America and England should be joined by a commercial treaty. He believed that there should be a trade relationship between America and the West Indies because it would be beneficial. He even indicated that someone would be sent to England in order to further discuss current matters. George Washington acquiesced to Hamilton's request and sent Governor Morris to England. It certainly did not take long for Hamilton to snag a spot on the list of "The Most Influential People". It's a miracle he even had time to accomplish all he accomplished. He would have been great at finals in high school.

Hamilton and Madison were considered to be "comrades" in the business world for a long while. In Madison's mind, a long-term debt would be disastrous for America. This thought lit a fire that would eventually lead to the falling out of Hamilton and Madison. 

Hamilton believed that the debt of the government was necessary in order for liberty to take a step further and he came up with a few ideas on how to pay off debt. He came up with the idea of a "sinking fund", which would help pay off debt a little at a time. It was a well thought out plan that would help pay off five percent of the debt each year until it was totally paid off. Numerous people believe that his report, the Report On Public Credit, would have been a dry piece of work if Hamilton had not added some spice to it and it definitely stirred up it's fair share of conflict. The House of Representatives didn't debate over it in February of 1790 for no reason. 

Hamilton later called upon Madison once again, but he received no help from him. Madison's renunciation felt like and dagger in the heart to Hamilton. When the topic of slavery abolition came about, Hamilton wanted to attack the slavery issue, but Madison wanted the matter to be tucked away out of fear of the southerners reactions. Madison directed all the attention to Hamilton in order to redirect the attention away from the slavery issue. 

Surely there's an easier way to have a musical dedicated to yourself, but Hamilton was known for taking on the more dull and difficult tasks.

Article: here

Gay Marriage

 Homosexuality has spread throughout the world and has infiltrated the minds of many people. A sin that was once considered detestable is now accepted all around the world. The gay pride flag is held high by many people and businesses. There are even many influential gay people that promote the homosexual lifestyle. Christians that are strong in their faith are even afraid to speak out because they are afraid they will be judged for being against gay marriage. There are even gay Christians in the world who know that what they are doing is wrong. The world was once founded on Christian principles and now most of those morals have wasted away.

I always thought that homosexuality and gay marriage was something that had recently arisen. I just assumed that it was a newer thing that had come up. The truth is, one of the first evidences of homosexuality was in the Bible in Genesis 19 when the men in Sodom went to Lot's house and asked to have sex with the men that were hiding in his house. "They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." (New International Version, Gen. 19:5). The first country to legalize gay marriage was The Netherlands in 2001, with the first same-sex marriage taking place in Amsterdam in 2001. More and more countries as well as religions are starting to accept homosexual marriage.

In 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that gay marriage way okay and acceptable. Gay marriage is now legal in all fifty states. Gay festivals are held all over the country and the month of June was even dubbed "Pride Month". Some American citizens may think that this will not affect them, but it definitely will. Both small and large businesses that refuse to serve homosexuals will receive persecution, private or public. People that own restaurants and bakeries are forced to go against their conscience and compromise their morals in order to avoid public shame because they did not make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. On an episode of the popular cooking show called Cake Boss, a lesbian couple walked into the bakery and requested that a cake be made for their wedding. The owner refused and received persecution from the couple as well as his own sister and ended up going his own conscience to make a cake for a gay wedding. Another case involved two men named David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who had planned to have their wedding in Massachusetts. They traveled to a place called Masterpiece Cakeshop to request a cake to be made for their wedding. The owner of the bakery, Jack Phillips, had to turn down the order because he said it would go against his morals and beliefs if he made a cake to celebrate a homosexual wedding. Mullins said, "Being denied service by Masterpiece Cakeshop was offensive and dehumanizing especially in the midst of arranging what should be a joyful family celebration." Phillips did say that he made a cake for the "marriage" of two dogs, but he admitted that he had refused to make cakes for other homosexual couples and that he would not make a cake for pedophiles. The only reason I believe that the homosexual has the right to be angry is that if Phillips rejected their order because he believed that gay marriage is a distortion of true marriage, then he needs to reject all orders that distort the true version of marriage; however, I do not believe that the homosexual couple should feel "dehumanized" due to the fact that Phillips did not make a cake for their wedding.

In 2008, California decided that having a ban on homosexual marriage was wrong. The city with the highest percentage of homosexuals in San Francisco, with 6.2 % of the entire gay population in the United States. Coming in second is Los Angeles, which has 4.6 % of the United States' gay population. California takes fifth place on the "Top 10 Most Liberal States" list, with about 27.5 % of California's population being liberal. California has passed the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which states that there is not a business in California that is legally able to refuse service to anyone based on what they are wearing or their sexual orientation. I do agree that homosexuals should not be openly judged, but it is not fair to force business owners to go against their morals. In California, it is illegal for any kind of business to reject a customer because of that customer's sexual orientation. Early in the year 2014, there was a catering business in California that claimed they would refuse to cater a gay wedding. Because of this, there are states like Arizona and Texas that are backing up the business' decision to not serve homosexuals. It is so sad to see that people from all over are being put down simply for following their morals.

The world is full of approximately 4,300 different religions, with Christianity as the largest religion with around 2.2 billion believers and Islam came in as the second largest with about 1.6 billion believers. A few other major religions are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Nazarene, and Episcopal. In the year 610, a man named Muhammad created the Islam religion. The Islam religion has very harsh beliefs towards gay marriage. It teaches that, if you are homosexual, you should be put to death. The Roman Catholic Church acts very loving towards the homosexual community. Although they are opposed to gay marriage, traditional Roman Catholics believe that everyone should show love towards gays and that they should be respected just like any normal person. The Nazarene Church instructs that homosexuality is a sin. Nazarenes believe that homosexual relationships are perverted. Acceptance of homosexuality in the church is believed to be in the works. The Episcopal Church is very welcoming of all members of the LGBTQ community, and there was even an openly gay bishop in 2003. In 2015, the Episcopal church made it legal for anyone to marry whoever they wanted no matter what gender they are. The Eastern Orthodox Church does not condone same-sex marriage. They will not kick anyone out of the church if they are struggling with the sin of homosexuality, but they refuse to perform homosexual weddings. Quite a few of the churches that are anti-gay will still accept homosexuals into their community while some still remain hostile.

The Christian Church believes that homosexuality is a sin. Some churches believe that homosexuality is one of the worst sins known to man while other churches believe homosexuality is a sin just like lying or cheating. There are some churches that will accept everyone along with all of their sin if they are truly seeking the Lord. On the other hand, some churches will refuse to allow people into the congregation if they are in a homosexual relationship. Romans 5:8 says, "But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us". God does not love sin, but he loves us. There are people that will definitely try to twist that verse in an attempt to rationalize homosexuality. I have often heard the phrase, "Homosexuality is just another form of love". People could even pull out the verse 1 John 4:8, which says, "Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love." The Bible is very clear about homosexuality. "If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense. (New International Version, Lev. 20:13)" There are some people that may ask, "Why do we overlook other sins such as premarital sex, but we do not overlook homosexuality?" Sin is sin and there is not a sin that is above another. Morals have been weakened over the years and sin has been becoming more and more acceptable. A man named Sam Allberry is the pastor of an Anglican church in a town in England called Maidenhead. The high school that Allberry attended was %100 male. He had a great relationship with both of his parents as well as the rest of his family. Over the course of his time in high school, Allberry began to notice that he was starting to have certain strong feelings that were directed towards his friends. He did not realize that he was having homosexual feelings due to the fact that being gay was not as accepted back the as it is today. Allberry began to get deep into the word of God at about the same time he realized he was having homosexual tendencies. Allberry said, "I am same-sex attracted and have been my entire life. I have sexual, romantic, and deep emotional attractions to people of the same sex." He also went on to say, "I was bullied at school for being gay. I now feel I'm being bullied at Synod for being same-sex attracted and faithful to the teaching of Jesus on marriage." I believe that Sam Allberry is living proof that people are not born gay. He just happened to be around all males when he was a teenager, which is the time in a person's life when hormones are raging. This led Allberry to think that he was attracted to people of the same sex. He believes that people are able to resist homosexual temptations. "You've got to learn to say no to yourself," he said.

I, personally, am against gay marriage; however, I know people who are gay and lesbian and yet I still remain friends with them. Some people even have family members that are gay; however, if I had a gay family member, I would not attend their wedding. I try my best to treat everyone with respect, regardless of their lifestyle and views. I am not someone who would openly confront a homosexual person and say, "What you are doing is wrong and you are going to burn in hell." I definitely do not think that marriage for homosexual couples should be legal; however, I do not believe that just being homosexual should be illegal like the Islam religion believes. What people do in their private time is their business and no one has the right to judge. I know most Christians will try and remain peaceful towards those who identify as part of the LGBTQ community, but not everyone is perfect and there are some people out there who will act hostile towards homosexuals. It is possible to love someone without loving his or her lifestyle. "He doesn't love evil or sin, but He does love His created beings." (Robertson 314) God's love is for all of His children and he welcomes everyone. I believe that those who believe they are homosexual, and have made Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior, will go to Heaven. Proverbs 8:17 says, "I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me." If they believe that what they are doing is wrong and accept God into their hearts, but they think they are born homosexual and can't stop living in sin, I think they can go to Heaven. I used to think that God only loved the people that walked with Him, but He loves each and every one of us, heterosexual or homosexual, and He wants all of us to go to Heaven.

Marriage between two homosexual individuals is quickly becoming legal in more and more places. The world was following Christianity at one point; however, sin kept creeping its way into the lives and minds of many people and now some people might consider it weird to not be a liberal. Hanging out with the wrong company could lead to the deterioration of our faith and our conscience. "So as we share our faith and mingle with people from every background – like Jesus did – we need to constantly watch our own hearts and make sure that we are the influence and not the other way around. Though we have friendships with non-Christians, we must choose fellow believers as our best friends." (Robertson 338) We might not think that hanging out with a certain crowd will affect our minds, but it will. Choosing the right people to be around will affect us mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. "...bad habits can become bad behavior, and before long you're a slave to that behavior." (Robertson 339) I think that many Christians are against gay marriage, but they are afraid to speak out about what they believe. Being the influencer instead of the influenced will not only possibly lead more people to the Lord, but it could also help eliminate some of the sin in the world. 

Economic, Political, and Moral Flourishing

"It is especially necessary when the substantive issue at stake concerns the relationship of human flourishing to economic liberty—a relationship that was particularly well understood by Adam Smith, one of the modern world's most careful and insightful students of both public policy and political philosophy."

The above quote was taken from an essay that was written about the famous Adam Smith. Smith was the kind of person who was in favor of economic freedom, thus meaning that he believed that the people of the community of should be able to take part in actions that affect the economy directly without the interference of the government. A great example of economic freedom would be the freedom of business. Entrepreneurs, or any individual, would have the right to create their own business and close their own business without the government breathing down their neck. A person who is unable to pay for a college tuition in order to pave the way towards a business degree would most likely be in favor of a policy such as freedom of business.

One major point that Smith tried to make was economic flourishing. He was a big fan of the word "flourishing". In his book The Wealth Of Nations, Smith uses it when addressing the issue of his want for "improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people"; however, not everyone agreed with that. Smith knew that there were some that believed higher wages would constitute laziness and that trying to make things better for the lower class would be an inconvenience, but he disagreed with those beliefs. His thoughts were that "what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole" and that the people who are hard-working should "have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged". I think that his beliefs make sense in a way. On one hand, you could have one individual who works really hard, but they only earn $8 per hour. On the other hand, you could have someone who barely has to bend over to make money and they earn $60+ per hour. It seems like the hard-worker deserves more pay for their efforts, but just because the other person's job is easy does not mean that they should be paid less. 

Smith went on to say that if the poorest and most poverty-stricken people are able to obtain goods with ease, then economic flourishing in doing its job. There was a quote in the memorial room of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that said, "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." Smith and FDR did not have much in common, but did agree on the belief that the state of the poor measures how much the economy is flourishing. 

Adam Smith had another book, which was titled The Theory Of Moral Sentiments. Smith also had a desire for political flourishing, meaning he wished to see society prosper as a whole and not just see selected parts flourish. This makes it sound like Smith would like to see all of the classes join together rather that have an upper class, middle class, and a lower class. He explained how he compared a world of justice to a world of beneficence and how he believed that, in order for a society to be truly happy, it must be joined into " "one common center" by ties of "love and affection"" rather than simply joined together by a need for trading and making money. While a society that is bound together by more than just wealth sounds like a utopia for some, it would come with its fair share of challenges and Smith knew it. Being a realist, Adam Smith knew that "the ideal society" would be asking too much of everyone.

Smith was also very concerned with moral flourishing, or how an individual flourishes. He said,"How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others..." He said that, naturally, mankind has, or should have, a love for the community. In addition, Smith also said that mankind wants to live in a more organized society rather than a society full of confusion, which makes sense because I do not see anyone choosing a society in a state of chaos over a society in a state of mayhem.

In the essay I read about Adam Smith, it claimed that economic freedom was helping advance economic flourishing as well as reduce the amount of destitution. After reading the essay, it seems like economic freedom could perhaps be a critical part of human flourishing. I believe that, with economic freedom, humankind has the power to continue to thrive in more ways than one. 

Article: here

Fast Growing Economy

President Trump believes that he has the ability to boost the economic growth of the United States. According to an article from aei.org, Trump is "just like every other politician". Not many politicians from America address the fact that America is one of the richest countries in the world. There are around 195 countries existing today, and as of 2016, the United States is the 13th richest country in the world. They also do not talk about trying to take the wealth from the top 10%, the richest people, and giving it to the other 90% of the population. Presidential candidate "inequality-obsessed" Bernie Sanders claimed that he could help raise the state of the economy if he was elected president. 

French politician Benoit Hamon believed that there was "a disconnect between economic growth and happiness". The World Happiness report 2017 is a study that consisted of asking one thousand people from one hundred and fifty different nations to state their level of happiness anywhere from zero to ten. What was interesting was that the happiest nations were the nations that were growing slower economically, such as Norway, Denmark, and Switzerland. Jeffrey Sachs, an economic writer, wrote, "The predominant political discourse in the United States is aimed at raising economic growth, with the goal of restoring the American Dream and the happiness that is supposed to accompany it. But the data shows conclusively that this is the wrong approach". In other words, many Americans believe that with a better economy and more money, happiness will imminently follow. That is, apparently, not the case. 

Not only are the happier one growing slower economically, but their population is lower. The twelve or so countries that are richer than the United States have a population of around eleven million people, with the top five richest countries having an even lower population of approximately five million. The closer the population number is of two countries, the closer the average happiness level will be. For example, take a look at the United States and the entire nation of Europe. Their happiness levels would be a lot closer than the happiness level of the United States compared to the happiness level of a smaller country, such as Japan.

It is true that a larger income and a growing economy can help people go to a better school and get a better job, but it will not guarantee happiness. An investigator for Measuring Happiness said bigger and better incomes "may not buy happiness with life in general, but it gives individuals the opportunity to be healthier, better educated, better clothed, and better fed, to live longer, and to live well". If you compare the economy of the United States today to when it was just recovering from a war, you will see that the economy rose more quickly when it was recovering from a war. If the economy of the United States rose that quickly today, every house would have a bigger income, about $30,000 bigger. We would most likely have more money with a fast-growing economy, but that does not mean that we would be happy. 

Article: http://www.aei.org/publication/why-ill-take-economic-growth-over-happiness-any-day/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=pethokoukiseconomicgrowth

Just A Few More Minutes

There are about 1.96 billion people on social networking sites and people are expecting that number to rise to around 2.5 billion in the year of 2018. Social media can be a way to stay up to date on what's going on in the world, from who is running for president to when the next episode of Teen Wolf is airing on TV. So many people use social media that you most likely can't even walk into a party without someone scrolling through Twitter. A lot of social media users use social media sites, like Twitter and Snapchat, to make new friends and meet new people. But what happens when those people need to talk to people face to face? What will happen when human interaction is needed? You get used to communication over the internet, but actual human interaction will steadily become more difficult for someone the more that person uses social media. I myself am an excessive internet user. I used to be such an extrovert. Now, even when hanging out with friends, I am constantly wondering when I will be able to log onto the internet. Over the years, I have developed social anxiety. Whenever I have to talk in class, my head will start throbbing, my heart will start pounding, and my palms will start sweating. I have gotten so used to internet communication that I can barely communicate face to face.

For some people, social media might fill a hole in their heart. They might view social media as a cure for the emptiness they feel inside. These kinds of feelings can definitely lead to addiction. It also depends on what you view on social media. At the University of Missouri, there was a study done that provided evidence for Facebook use being linked to depression. The study explained that when people see what their friends are doing and what is going on in their own lives, it can lead to depressed feelings. But jealousy is not the only way social media can lead to depression. The more a person uses social media, the more a person will isolate themselves from everyone else in order to stay online. How many times have you said, "Just a few more minutes"? I know I have said that phrase plenty of times. Let's say there are two people: Person A and Person B. Person A and Person B are invited to a party. Person A accepts the invitation. Person B declines because they are "too tired", but in reality they just want to scroll through Tumblr. Person A gets home from the party and tells Person B how much fun they had with their friends. Person B then feels "left out", but they just can't get off of social media. I believe that excessive social media use can possibly lead to depression. I used to be a really happy person, but I use the internet excessively every day and most of my happiness is no longer there. 

Article: #1 #2

It's A Phase, Mom

*I know that this article wasn't on your list for this week, but I have never written on this subject and it's economical*

Dr. Paul McHugh

Allowing people that believe they are transgender to use their preferred bathroom has been an issue for quite some time. Some states, like South Carolina, allow people to use whichever bathroom they choose. Washington, however, requires people to use the bathroom designated for their biological gender. There are even states that are required to have bathrooms for both cisgender and transgender individuals. I do not believe that transgender bathrooms should exist. If someone believes they are a different gender, it is all in their head. According to a man named Dr. Paul McHugh, the suicide rate for people who changed their sex went up by at least 20% and that most of those people, around 70 to 80%, "lost those feelings". I feel like that just reinforces the fact that someone believing they are supposed to be a different gender is just a phase.  

There was a case that involved an individual that went by the name of GG. This person, a biologically female individual, believed that she was really a male trapped inside a female body. She argued that since her school did not allow her to use the male restroom, it was sex discrimination. There was even a law professor named Michael Dorf that had the same views on the issue as GG. Dorf wrote in a blog, "Boys can use the boys’ restroom; G.G. can’t because the school regards him as a girl. That’s sex discrimination, plain and simple….". I believe that it was not sex discrimination, but rather sex reinforcement. The school was not discriminating against GG's beliefs. They just wanted her to use the bathroom that belonged to her biological sex. The school regards GG as a girl because GG is a girl. The same thought comes from the rest of the LGBTQ community. They think that if we do not agree with their choices or their lifestyle, then we are "intolerant" or "discriminating". This is most definitely not the case. 

Were you born this way? Were you a girl born in a boy's body or a boy born in a girl's body? No, you were not. The issue of trying to create more transgender bathrooms throughout the world is absolutely ridiculous. If a girl thinks that she is not comfortable with certain feminine things, that does not mean she is a boy born in a girl's body. It just means she is a tomboy and she might eventually grow out of it. There could be a great fashion designer who is male that makes clothes for females. Does that mean that, since he manufactures feminine products, he is supposed to be a woman? To put it simply, no it does not. The belief that if you are a girl and your into boyish things, or vice versa, means that you are meant to be the opposite gender is just sickening. It might be a little weird, but being into things that generally the other sex is into does not mean you are supposed to be the opposite sex. Whichever sex people are born as, that is the sex they are supposed to be. 

Articles: #1 #2 #3

Living Vicariously

Have you ever told your child or have your parents ever told you that as long as you have a good spirit, the love of Jesus Christ, and a good paying job, then you will be happy? That you need to have a lot of money in order to be happy in your life? How many times have you heard someone say, "You need a good job and make a lot of money in order to be happy!" or "No you can't major in that field because it will not make you enough money!"? It seems as though some parents these days are teaching their kids the "Prosperity Gospel". The prosperity gospel is a distorted version of the true gospel. It teaches people that to be healthy, wealthy, and happy is what God wants for every single one of his children. The illusion that we need to be wealthy to be happy seems to have seeped into the minds of almost everyone you encounter. It is true that God wants the best for every human being, whether they are one of His children or not. However, not everyone is going to end up wealthy. Wealthy people will, at times, think they do not need to rely on God because they have a lot of money. Not necessarily poor people, but people with less money will most likely be more reliant on God. Material prosperity is not everything. 

Part of the prosperity gospel also comes from parents trying to make their kids the center of their world. The parent might even try to make the child succeed in order for the parent to be satisfied. This sort of behavior might stem from the parents wanting their child to have a successful life so that they can live vicariously through their child. Parents need to not put that much pressure on children.  Children are not responsible for making their parents satisfied with their own lives. It is possible that some kids will end up hating their parents if they are forced to excel in something in which they find no joy. I'm sure parents want the best for their kids, but there is no need to keep pushing them to be the best at everything. Children should be loved by their parents, but not be the absolute center of their parents world. 

Numerous parents want to shield their kids from the evil things in the world and from bad experiences. This is understandable because parents do not want any harm to come tho their children. However, parents need to let their kids experience hard times. How many times in the Bible did God let people go through trials in order to strengthen their faith in Him? How will kids mature and have their faith strengthened if they are not able to experience life? God wants us to have the strongest relationship with Him that we can have and we can't have that unless the hardships of life force us to turn to God for help. 

Article: here

Murder Is Not Moral

Willie J. Parker

A man named Willie J. Parker claimed that he had a "conversion" and that he could work in a "moral and spiritual argument" when on the topic of abortion. He stated, "It felt as life-altering for me to move from being unable to do abortions to being able to do them as it did to move from being an unbeliever to a believer". The fact that this man thinks that God is calling him to perform abortions makes me sick. To put it simply, abortion is murder and that's the truth. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Exodus 20:13, it says, "You shall not murder". Does this man that claims to have had a "religious" calling to perform abortions really think that God wants him to perform an act that he clearly said not to do? I thought only Satan tempted us to do things that went against God's wishes. I could be wrong, but I'm not. 

Parker also said that he does not think the life of a fetus is as important as the life of a female. He said, "In the moral scheme of things, I don't hold fetal life and the life of a woman equally". I'm sorry, but in the "MORAL" scheme of things? MORAL? Does he really think that it is morally correct and okay to help women kill their unborn babies? The decision to consider one life more important than the other is not at all a moral decision. All human life is important. No matter what stage it is at, whether it is at the moment or conception or 90 years into the journey of life, a human is a human and it is important. If there is a heartbeat, then it is a living breathing human created by God. 

I have always thought that abortion was murder. I have always thought that a baby was a baby from the moment of the conception, not from the moment it comes out of the womb. Even if a woman does not want children or she can't afford a child and she accidentally gets pregnant, I still think that abortion is wrong. Let's say there's two women, one is 40 years old and married and one is 16 years old with a boyfriend. If the 40 year old woman chooses to keep the child, it could harm her health because it's considered dangerous to give birth past the age of 35. If the 16 year old chooses to keep the baby, it'll bring shame onto her because she's only a teenager. Which one do you think would be more encouraged to get an abortion? The 16 year old girl. The truth is, neither one should get an abortion. Yes, it could damage the health of the 40 year old woman and it could damage the reputation of the 16 year old girl. But those aren't excuses to kill one of God's creations. I believe that if a baby is conceived, then it should be allowed to live and not be murdered before it even gets the chance to live it's life. 

Read the article here

Early Marriage?

Have you ever thought about getting married young and then decided against it because you thought that it would limit your time to be yourself, decrease your choices, or that it would all just end in divorce? There was an article called "Say Yes. What Are You Waiting For?" written by a man named Mark Regnerus that talked about maturity when getting married, divorce, and getting married young. Regnerus said that getting married young isn't always the cause of a marriage ending, but it could very well be a sign of immaturity. I agree that getting married young could possibly be a dangerous thing because younger people might tend to focus on the romance of a relationship and not realize that there's far more to a relationship than romance.

Regnerus writes, "I've met 18 year olds who can handle it and 45 year olds who can't". He states that it depends on the mentality of the person when getting married. Regnerus also said that knowing how to resolve a conflict and communication are two key ingredients in a lasting relationship. I've been told many times that one of the most important things in any relationship is communication, which makes sense because there's no way a marriage could work out if the communication and honesty isn't there. If a marriage relationship lacks communication, how will conflicts get resolved? How will the two people ever be happy without honesty and communication?

He mentions that having a degree before you marry is a smart idea, and I agree with that. When you have a degree, you at least have an idea of where you want to go in life. If you marry before you get your degree, you still might not know what you want to do yet. If you marry after, you will have more knowledge of what you want and what you're doing. However, not everyone will have this problem if they marry before they get a degree. I'm simply saying that I believe it is a smart idea to have a degree before marriage.

Snowflakes. Snowflakes Everywhere.

I am often surprised by the things that people do simply to be accepted by society. People will go to many great lengths in order to protect their "oh so precious" reputation. There are so many people in the world today that are against Donald Trump, particularly people who hold a high position in society such as actors, singers, and fashion designers. The fashion designer, Sophie Theallet, refused to make dresses for Ivanka Trump and First Lady Melania Trump. Normally, the dress that the first lady wears on the Inauguration Day is put into the National Museum of American History. One thing about this situation that confuses me is that this has never been an issue. No fashion designer has refused to make a dress for the first lady. So why is it such a controversial issue now when it was never a real issue until now? I am sure that there have been people inducted into office who were worse than Donald Trump. Did Sophia Theallet refuse to make a dress for Melania because she thought it would ruin her career? Did she not want people to see her as someone who "associates herself with the Trump family"? The mindset of people today seems to be "Oh I Can't Show My True Colors Or People Will Know The Real Me" or "If People Do Not Like Me Then I Will Not Be Able To Live With Myself". The people in the world who think like that need to hurry and wake up and realize that not everyone is going to like them or the things they choose to do. 

Sure, people have a right to have their own opinion, whatever it may be. But if a fashion designer refuses to make a dress for someone, what if another fashion designer who makes clothes strictly for men or strictly for women refuses to make clothes for the opposite gender? What if a woman walks into a shop that makes men's suits only and asks the designer to make her a dress and the designer says no? That woman could, and probably would, sue that man and his whole company for not making her a dress. She would probably say something along the lines of, "It's because I'm a woman, isn't it?". The level of snowflake-ness and extreme pettiness that currently exists in the world makes me want to punch a wall because it frustrates me so much. Oh, I'm sorry were you offended because that person walked by with a Donald Duck shirt on and Trump's first name is Donald? Here's a puppy to make you feel better. Would it make you feel better if I were to stand here and pat your back while I call you a snowflake? Yes, someone might not like Donald Trump or his family and not want anything to do with them. I do not particularly like the man, but that does not mean that I would not make a dress for his wife.

Cowards, Prayers Led, and Scriptures Read

The world witnessed a small piece of history on January 20th, 2017: the inauguration of the 45th president of the United States, Donald Trump. There were many people that attended the inauguration including some famous celebrities. However, there were a few celebrities who denied the invitation to attend the inauguration of president Donald Trump. What I do not completely understand is why they would say that they would not be attending. Is it because they think it will ruin their "reputation"? Or maybe they think it will destroy their "career"? As a matter of fact, both options are quite likely, but I still think it is a stupid reason to not go to an event that supports President Trump. The same reason why some of the celebrities refused to go to the inauguration is probably one of the reasons why America has lost a lot of the morals that it was founded upon and also one of the reasons why the world is in this current state of, for lack of a better word, disgusting-ness. Little to no people will stand up for what they believe in anymore. People will lie about their opinion simply for the sake of their own They are afraid that it will make people change their opinion about them or they think it will make people not like them. It is true that either of those things may happen, but isn't it better to have your thoughts out in the open instead of keeping them bottled up inside of your mind forever? 

Another part of president trump's inauguration that came as a shock to me was that prayers were said and scriptures were read. Even the mere presence of an openly religious person at an event such as the inauguration shocks me a little bit. This country was first following Christian morals and principles. As of late, promoting Christianity

or even the mere mention of the name "Jesus" will inevitably be followed by persecution. You could just go up to someone and say, "Hey, I believe in God" and they would probably respond with, "Oh, I can't be seen with you" or "No, you can't talk to me". Not just in America, but Christians all across the globe are afraid of talking about Jesus. It's not even allowed in public schools. The fact that there were preachers that attended the inauguration that read scriptures from the Bible and led the people in prayer gives me the smallest bit of hope. I'm sure that at least some of the past presidential candidates would never allow prayer or scripture readings at their inauguration. Since President Trump allowed such things at his inauguration, it makes me hate him just a little bit less.

President Trump, to me, seems like a bit of a people pleaser. In Trump's speech at the inauguration, he said, "I will never, ever let you down". I feel as if he is saying that just to please Americans and I don't think that statement will remain true for very long. Who knows what's going to happen while Donald Trump is president. There might be a terrorist attack and he might not be able to stop it or we might get even further into debt. He shouldn't have said, "I will never, ever let you down". He should've said, "I will try to never, ever let you down".

Can't Reach It, Don't Need It

Do you remember when people were not able to go to high school? Do you remember when attending high school was a privilege and not a right? Yeah, I don't remember either. That is because attending high school for free has been a right for everyone for a long time. Everyone is able to attend a public K-12 school for no charge. Now many people today are asking why a public college education is not offered free of charge. When I ask myself that question, it does make me think. Why not offer a free public college education? If the college enrollment went up, then jobs would increase as well. More teachers would be needed due to the increase in the size of the student body. I am sure that many people would benefit from a higher education, especially if it does not challenge them financially.


Now, all that being said, I still think that a free college education would raise problems. I'm not saying that it wouldn't provide any benefits because I know that a majority of the world's population would benefit from another four or more years of debt-free education. I know I would. However, it would cause some issues. If college was free, there's going to be at least one person who will take advantage of it. They will think, "Well, I'm not wasting my money if I don't attend this one class, so what's the point in going? One simple class I'll not matter". Now, one skipped class may not matter at the time, but what will happen when it turns into three skipped classes? Five skipped classes? College would just end up being like the free app on your phone that just sits there because you never use it.

It's true that a college education today is a privilege. People either have rich parents or family members that pay for their tuition, work hard to earn their own education, or they simply do not attend at all. As of April in 2015, about 70% of Americans did not have a college degree. Among that 70%, there was probably a good mix of people who dropped out of college and those who did not even enroll in a two year or four year college. According to howtoedu.org, pursuing a degree makes it easier for someone to get a job. It's easier to pursue a job when you have something else driving you. To put it simply, I do not think that offering a free college education would be a smart move. There would be too many people that would take advantage of it. The longer people don't have to work for their education, the harder it will be for people to even try looking for a part time job let alone getting a full time career. I am not saying that this would happen to everyone, but I think it could and probably would happen to a lot of people if free college were to be offered.

I See You Sinning

The media likes to portray the stereotypical Christian as someone who takes all of the crap that's thrown at them and just says, "Lord bless your soul". Christians are thought of as people who do not, or
at least aren't supposed to, retaliate. I'm not saying that Christians aren't and shouldn't act this way. A lot of Christians do, and should. In addition to the media's projection of the Christian community, there are many movies and TV shows that attack Christians as a whole. Various jokes are made towards Christian beliefs and practices. It's not even just the Christian religion, although that is the main focus of the jokes. The Jewish religion is also being constantly made fun of. Even gays, bisexuals, lesbians, and transgenders are taking a lot of heat from the media. However, you are always hearing about how people are having riots in the streets because they don't agree with who even knows what. The LGBT community is always protesting because some insignificant person openly told them that what they're doing is wrong. Let's be honest, how many times has there been a story on the news titled "CHRISTIANS PROTESTING IN THE STREETS"? Probably not very many times, right? That in no way gives someone the right to make fun of the Christians in the world. Luke 6:31 says, "Do to others as you would have them do to you".

A lot of the heat that Christians take comes from TV shows. One of

those TV shows is the very popular "Family Guy", created by Seth Macfarlane. Macfarlane is very sacrilegious and he is proud of it. He does a very good job showing it with the jokes that he lets into the script of his show. He loves to attack the Christian faith,

particularly in a Christmas episode of the show where a character kicked the baby Jesus out of the manger. Some might see Macfarlane as fearless since he holds nothing back when it comes to making crude jokes. Being a Christian myself, I see Macfarlane as a straight up coward. He knows that Christians will not retaliate when they see their religion being made fun of. Sure they may wag their finger at the screen and say, "Jesus can see you sinning", but they will not go out and protest. That is probably why Seth Macfarlane thinks that he can make joke about the Christian faith and not be worried about being attacked by the majority of society. What many people don't realize is that he is truly being a coward. He doesn't want groups such as the LGBT community and black community to come after him, so he goes after the safest options, Christians. I believe he his afraid, and I know that other fellow Christians would agree with me. I believe that if a Christian were to hear an off-color joke

directed towards their faith, it would be perfectly understandable to get offended. Personally, however, it doesn't bother me and I just let it roll off. The way I see it is that the person who makes the crude joke aimed towards Christians clearly has a butt on their face instead of a mouth because all that comes out is crap. They need Jesus.

Raise The Roof, Not Housing Costs

Number of minimum wage jobs required
to pay rent in areas of San Francisco.

The price of housing costs is rising and falling everyday, with some areas being cheaper than others. The drastic change in housing costs is most commonly occurring in San Francisco and New York. As of 2015, 870,000 of the 78.2 million people who were 16 years old and older that had a job received $7.25 per hour, making up 3.3% of the workers who receive hourly wages. That means that 3.3% is earning at or below minimum wage. But what about the workers who don't receive hourly rates? Yes, 3.3% may not seem like a large amount and it might not seem like a problem, but I believe that it's more of an issue than we realize. Say that one of these workers who earned minimum wage lived in San Francisco by themselves, meaning that they would have to pay for the rent themselves. The cost of living in San Francisco is growing rapidly. If someone simply wanted to rent a place instead of buy a place in San Francisco, they would have to take on more than one, possibly even more, full-time minimum wage jobs. In certain areas of San Francisco, some are required to have at least six or seven minimum wage paying jobs just to be able to pay their rent. That's not even including things such as groceries, clothes, or gas for their car. Yet some people think that this isn't an issue?



 The American in me wants to say that we should raise the minimum wage from about $8.00 per hour to somewhere around $10.00 per hour; however, the more logical side of me is saying that while that may help some people pay for expenses easier, it will just cause problems for other people who make more than minimum wage. The more a person makes, the more taxes they have to pay. The people who make the most money have to pay the most taxes and some of their money goes to the lazy people who just want to lay on the couch all day and have their money basically spoon-fed to them without work. I find myself sometimes guilty of being one of the lazy people who never wants to work, but at least I know when I can be lazy and when I can't be. I don't want to be stuck on welfare my whole life and I don't want a dead end job at McDonald's forever. I want a career so that I'll be able to take care of myself and not be a useless slob who doesn't work and lives in their parent's basement. Also, if the minimum wage is increased by a lot, then I feel like it will cause people to have less of an ambition of getting a real career. They might think, "Oh I can survive on this small minimum wage job, so forget pursuing a career". It's true that there are places where multiple minimum wage paying jobs are required just to survive. But if people are complaining that it's too much for them, then they need to move to a different area. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terri-ludwig/if-were-serious-about-tac_b_9618036.html

Don't Cry Over Different Opinions

There has been a lot of disagreement, even violence, due to the results of this year's presidential election. Those that wanted Hillary Clinton to win are distraught that Donald Trump stole the position of President from Clinton. There are riots in the streets because some think that Trump will not be a good president and they are also terrified for their lives because their skin color isn't white. I agree that the way Trump talks makes him sounds a bit racist. But that doesn't mean that he will act on those thoughts when he becomes president. These people that are rioting in the streets and shout at people on street corners aren't even willing to give Trump a chance at being president. However, I will admit that I myself have said that neither Trump nor Hillary would be a good fit to run the country. I don't agree with Hillary's policies and Trump will most likely run his mouth and get us into a global war. I'm not wrong, am I? But, in my mind, I believe that I am a republican and I am willing to let Trump have a shot at running America before I decide whether he is truly a bad president or not. 



Families are being split apart because of opposing political views. Friends are turning into enemies simply because of difference in opinions. People across the nation are requiring a "safe space" for themselves because they are "triggered" due to the fact that someone has a different opinion. But like what the actual hell? Isn't that what makes humanity so creative and diverse? A difference in opinions? Romans 12:6 says, "In his grace, God has given us different gifts for doing certain things well". If God gave us all different gifts and different opinions, then why should we have the right to get angry at someone who thinks differently than we do? We were all made in God's image, but we are all wired differently; therefore, we all think differently.

Hillary Clinton called herself a Christian. However, she believes that gay marriage and abortion is okay. In my mind and in my heart, I don't believe that you can think those things are okay and call yourself a Christian. Exodus 20:13 says, "You shall not murder". Leviticus 18:22 says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination". Abortion, to me, is murder. A baby is a baby from the moment the baby is conceived. Ending the baby's life simply before it is born doesn't mean that it's not murder. Gay marriage is just wrong. There's no other way to put it. God didn't intend for it to happen, so how can it not be a sin? I don't understand how you can be okay with abortion and gay marriage and call yourself a Christian. But I do have friends who are gay. I don't agree with the way that they live, but I love them apart from the way they live. If a self-proclaiming-Christian Hillary supporter, who agreed with her policies, got angry at a Trump supporter for disagreeing with Hillary, that just wouldn't make sense in my eyes. A Christian agreeing with non-Christian policies becoming angry with another Christian for disagreeing with said policies? Does that make sense to you? Because it doesn't make sense to me.

Homosexuality

One of the most controversial topics in our world today is gay marriage. Something that was once frowned upon and illegal is now legal and encouraged. In many places in the world, there are gay pride festivals being held. What many people may not realize is that they are just celebrating sin. In Leviticus 18:22, it says "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable".

A majority of the world has long since abandoned it's morals. Let's be honest, how many people do you think ask themselves "What would Jesus do?" or "What would Jesus think if He saw me doing this?"? Probably not many people. Nevertheless, God loves everyone unconditionally. I read an article that stated, "But prominent evangelical Christians continue to become publicly affirming of LGBT persons". Yes the Bible says that gay marriage is wrong, so it would make sense that these evangelical Christians would be against the homosexual lifestyle; however, they don't need to publicly ridicule the LGBT people. Jesus loves everyone, but that doesn't mean that he loves everyone's lifestyle choices. You can love someone without loving the choices that they make. The same article said, "...it is high time Christians opened wide their arms, wide their churches, wide their tables, wide their homes to the LGBT community".

There are even many influential people who are involved in the media that are gay, such as Tyler Oakley, Connor Franta, Trevor Moran, and Sam Smith. Now that there are people like this involved in things like the media and there are more and more people getting addicted to the internet, more and more people are letting their guard down. There are more people accepting gay and lesbian marriage everyday. People think, "Oh the world will not affect me. I will stand my ground and keep my morals". What people do not realize is that that is a whole lot easier said than done. I will admit that I am guilty of this accusation. I myself have many friends that are gay, lesbian, transgender, and bi. And I accept them for who they are. But does that mean that I approve of all of the choices that they make for themselves? Absolutely not. As I said before, you definitely do not need to love someone's lifestyle to love the person as well. If we, including Jesus, did have to love someone's lifestyle to be able to like the person, would Jesus love any of us? The answer is no. He would not. 

Jesus does say that we should not associate ourselves with people like that, but that does not mean that we have to completely shut them out. We just should not actively seek out their company. The issue of someone having a gay family member also comes up quite often. Like Jesus, we are supposed to love everyone, regardless of lifestyle. Say you yourself had a gay or lesbian family member and they invited you to their wedding. If it were me, I would not be morally able to attend the wedding. So, what I'm saying is, if I were in that situation, I would still love that person. But I would not be able to attend a wedding like that. 

That's What Xi Said

I read a few articles about a man named Xi Jinping. Xi Jinping is the current leader of China. Some even refer to him as the "core leader". One of the articles claimed that, by making Xi Jingping the "core leader" of China, it "elevates Mr. Xi to a level of individual power last bestowed on Jiang Zemin...". The thought of making Xi the "core leader" is said to have been influenced by Mr. Xi himself and a few of his allies. In fact, one of the articles said that, unlike his predecessor Deng Xioaping, Xi Jinping called himself the "core leader", and the people of China just went along with it.  Is Xi Jinping a strong-willed person, or are some of the minds of the people just weak-willed? Perhaps a bit of both?

Giving Mr. Xi the title of "core leader" seems like a huge ego boost. It basically is telling the people that whatever Xi Jinping says goes; although he's not nearly as powerful as Mao Zedong or Deng Xiaoping.  Now that he holds this title,  most the people of China have pretty much surrendered to him. Whether they were forced to or  it was by their own choice I do not know. There are some that believe that Xi Jinping, by holding this title, now believes that he can control too much of China's decisions, which may be true. I'm sure that if I was in charge of a country and I was called the "core leader", I would feel like I could control the world and get anyone to do what I say. If Xi Jining thinks that he can get most of the people of China to do what he wants, wouldn't that lead to some screwed up future policies? I'm going to answer that right now. Yes, yes it would.  

As an American, I do not know if Xi Jinping is doing a good job or a bad job ruling China. Whatever he's doing doing, he probably wants to do as much of it as he can before his reign is over. It's like how Obama wants to do as much damage to America as he can before a new presidents is elected (yes, I definitely did have to say that). One of the articles said that Xi "may delay choosing a successor, so that he has more time and more choices, and preserves his influence". I think that he want to stay in a position of power because he has been so elevated for so long. He's probably used to people agreeing with what he says, even if out of fear, and he does not want it to end. Xi Jinping is described as a "formidable leader". The definition of formidable is: "inspiring fear or respect through being impressively large, powerful, intense, or capable". It is possible that Xi Jinping gave himself this title simply to engrave into the people minds that he is going to be their leader and he is going to give the orders. Just like what Obama is doing to America, it seems as though Xi Jinping trying to bring China down. 

Fat, Dumb, and Addicted

I read an article about how the media is affecting the amount of geniuses in the world. I agree with that to an extent. The article claimed that Twitter is shortening our attention span. That is true. Well, partly. I think more and more people are getting addicted to Twitter because the current generation is so focused on how people think of them and more people today are focused on internet communication rather than real life communication. During the day, people are thinking ,"When is the next time I can log on to Twitter? I wonder what people are saying about me". I admit that I myself am guilty of internet addiction. But I believe that my own addiction doesn't interfere with my social skills as much as the people of today's society. People today are so addicted to the internet that it is deteriorating their social skills. No one wants to communicate face to face anymore, which is insane. While I understand that sometimes being alone is nice and simply texting someone can be just enough, humans were designed to be social. We need to interact with other humans not just for our own good, but also for  fulfilling our purpose and spreading the word of God. 

The article also claimed that the way people think geniuses are formed today isn't actually true. People think that drilling information into someone's head will automatically make them smart, and that's not always the case. The article stated that you don't make someone drown themselves in chemistry books if they want to become a history teacher.  I completely agree with that. For example, if I wanted to become a genius on the subject of Visual Arts, which I do, I wouldn't go off to university and major in mechanical engineering. I would need to submerge myself in everything related to Visual Arts in order to become an expert. That's what everyone needs to do. Whichever field that a person wants to go into, they need to study that subject in order to become a genius on the topic. 

I think that the media has another affect on how people think. Since so many people are concerned with the way people think of them today, they could ask random people on the internet if they think that they could succeed in the field that they want to go into. If that person says no, then the person will drop that major and find a new one that will make them seem smart to other people. For example, someone could want to be an actor, but their parents or family might not think that's it's a respectable career. So that person will take up a new career, such as being a lawyer. The fact that some people are like this bothers me. I want to go into Visual Arts and I already know that it's a tough field to find a job in. I already know that people think I won't know what to do with my life. But I want to do it; therefore, I'm going to do it. 

A Right Or A Weapon?

   On many college campuses today, the right to freedom of speech has become a huge issue. Students that feel even the slightest bit offended, they have the right to leave the room to obtain some sort of "psychological safe space". They are saying that freedom of speech can be used as a weapon. A report called "And Campus For All: Diversity, Inclusion, and Freedom of Speech and U.S. Universities" claims that a lot of students on various campuses aren't exercising their right of freedom of speech because they are worried about offending other peers. The very same report stated that "A rising generation may be turning against freedom of speech". people are afraid to speak freely because they could offend one person or even multiple people. An insignificant comment, such as "your shirt is ugly", could set off a chain reaction in the person's mind to where they think, "Oh wait. That person just offended me. I need a safe space. GET ME A SAFE SPACE!".     Yes, there are some people out there who are more sensitive than others, but some of those people know how to hide it well. People on college campuses, or anywhere for that matter, shouldn't need a place like a "puppy room" to make themselves feel better. What I'm wondering is, if all of these people can't handle one person disagreeing with them or one slightly rude comment, how are they going to be able to fend for themselves in the real world? The truth is, they won't be able to function.    

A Right Or A Weapon?

On college campuses, speakers are being turned away if they don't agree with what most of, if not all of, the students believe. For example, if a speaker for the LGBT community who was anti-LGBT were to go to a college campus full of pro-LGBT students, they would most likely not be able to speak there because they could accidentally offend one, or multiple, students. The fact that these people still want freedom of speech, yet they can't handle one minor disagreement, just blows my mind. In the world, there are DEFINITELY going to be people who disagree with you. No doubt about it. The education system, college particularly, is supposed to prepare you for the real world. If you aren't able to handle someone having a different opinion than you, you won't be able to deal with the issues going on in the world today.     

 The reporter of the "And Campus For All: Diversity, Inclusion, and Freedom of Speech and U.S. Universities" asked a student, named Storm Ervin, from the University of Missouri what her opinion was on the right of freedom of speech. Ervin stated that freedom of speech is a "basic human right for herself and for her group", which makes sense because any normal American citizen would want the freedom of speech, wouldn't they? But then, Ervin turns things around. Ervin wants freedom of speech, but when it comes to a group that disagrees with Ervin's beliefs, she is against freedom of speech. In other words, Ervin is for "compromised freedom of speech". That is not how the First Amendment was supposed to play out. The word "freedom" is in the term "freedom of speech" for a reason.

                                     

Never-ending Argument

There have been a few forms of government throughout our history that just have not worked. There is always something that just does not fit in. In the year 1783, there was yet again another government issue. There was a "new" type of government forming in America; however, it was too similar to the type of government that America had just escaped from. James Madison stepped up to the plate and tried to steer America away from entering back into the same useless form of government. He enlisted the help of the great George Washington. George Washington was hungering for retirement. He was ready to throw in the towel and take a break from all of the action. What Washington did not realize was that Madison was manipulating him into coming out of retirement. I think that Madison just wanted the help of an experienced person like Washington to aid him in forming an ideal new government.

One of the main reasons that the American government was weak in 1783 was the fact that the constitution America had at the time was very weak. One reason for this could have been because our constitution copied others; therefore, it had to be remade. But how? How could the constitution be remade to where it pleases at least the majority of the people? I think that the American government at the time should have let the people vote on it. Yes, that is both a good decision and a dangerous one. However, if the government wanted to please the majority of the people, letting them have a say would probably be the best way to please the majority of America's population.

Appearing out of the tangled mess known as the political process came the idea that finally captured America; however, it was not necessarily the best plan. It went against the traditional norm of the political system and it was not exactly what one would call "logical". It put state and federal government against each other in a constant battle for dominant power, thus making the "argument itself the answer". The constitution was now considered "an argument without end". After hearing about this, George Washington truly believed that our nation was no longer moving towards greatness, but chaos. He even informed John Jay that he did "not conceive that we can exist long as a nation", which, given the state of the constitution, was probably true. If there was constant arguing between state and federal government, there would have been practically no way for the political system of America to move forward.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay took it upon themselves to help America in making a new and stronger constitution. They wrote a series of 85 articles called "The Federalist" in order to ratify, or confirm, a new constitution. James Madison was in favor of the federal government being in supreme power, which meant that there would be smaller community forms of government as well as a reigning national government. Alexander Hamilton, however, wanted the states to disappear. It was a "take it or leave it" decision. There would be no negotiating involved with this decision. The federalist had to choose between staying united or complete disbandment. There were pros and cons to both having the states stay together as a united nation as well as eradicating the states altogether. Either way, in my opinion, the nation could still be united as one. If the states did end up completely vanishing and all that was left was just "one giant America", everyone would be united as one, considering that some states have different views on various subjects such as abortion and gay marriage. No state laws would separate the the states via morality. If the states stayed and there were small local governments as well as a larger national government, everyone would be united under the supreme reigning government. But small republics in small areas seemed to work better for the well being of America. The Founders even created a bicameral legislature for two important reasons: to make sure that the states were represented efficiently and for the separation of powers. The complete eradication of the states seems and having everyone united under one single government sounded like a nice option, but what do I know? I'm not a politician. I would say that the people in charge of deciding whether the states would stay or not knew what they were doing, but we had just freed ourselves from England only years earlier, so they were clearly still trying to get a handle on how to run the government.