A Roosevelt Revival

The Best of the best in presidents:


The best Democratic president we have ever had: Franklin D. Roosevelt. One key element of being the “best” is that people think you or what you did was great, there is a certain degree of likeability needed. After all, he is the president and representing the people of the nation, so there’s an extent to which we should like him. (Then again we don’t always like our parents when they tell us we need to clean our room) This site has rated the top five best Democratic presidents, and they say, “Franklin D. Roosevelt is undeniably the best Democratic President that America has ever had.” He was also the best despite (or perhaps because of) the circumstances. He helped America through the great depression and WWII. Now let’s talk about that “New Deal.” When people are in crisis, they want the President to act, and he should. Hoover thought the economy was best left to reorganize itself (which can happen with a lot of economic failures) but he ignored the suffering of his nation, and no one wants a president like that. Instead we want one who ends prohibition and proposes a second new deal when the first doesn’t completely work. He just got a lot done to be honest.

The best Republican president we have ever had: Abraham Lincoln okay I guess we’re going post civil war and into a bit more modern times… how ‘bout Teddy Roosevelt? If we’re back on the well liked thing, this site has ranked by voter’s opinion the best Republican presidents. Guess who falls second after Lincoln? Oh ya, I already wrote his name. Theodore Roosevelt. More tangible/practical reasons why he was the best: the “square deal.” How many of you like Yellowstone? Well, he protected our natural resources. He also made sure we as the average consumers were not being deceived.  He broke up trusts which if you were in econ with Mr. T you know are generally bad. His foreign policy was to expand the US influence in the world. Okay so a few people don’t like how involved we are now, but it was good at the time in America and he helped bring a lot of peace.


So who would win if we pitted them against each other today? In an election I mean. Short answer: FDR. Long answer: He created a new economy from the dust. “New deal”- A lot of people are not happy with the economy now and they want the problem fixed. Ending prohibition- for the population that want weed and other drugs legalized; he would probably do this. Why not Teddy? Foreign policy- very controversial. People are more interested in keeping people out of our nation (with a great big wall perhaps) than they are in policing every country aiming for peace. In the end, I think FDR would take it, and to be honest I might vote for him too (b/c economy).  Your thoughts?


How We Got Here


“The Dawn Of the Exploration Party”

Many years ago, one of Teddy Roosevelt’s cabinet members, Leapold Smith published a novel titled: The Dawn of Discovery: dusk is coming. It recounted the historical events of discovery from the invention of the wheel, to the journey to America, to Man’s first steps on the moon. The novel discussed the importance of exploration, while also highlighting its decline into obscurity. It’s warning of a dismal future caught the eye of Ocean Activist Dr. Nathan Seefeldt who immediately took the book to his Marine Biology class at Biola University. It caught the eye of several students and other professors at the school.

Soon a small group formed that met after classes, trying to find ways to stop “the extinction of exploration” as they called it. They named themselves “Explorers of Action.” A few students from the college got involved in activist programs  around the community, gaining slight attentions. “While we want to explore new places and new resources, we need to protect the ones we already have. Our nation isn’t doing that.” Said student Lace Narrator, member of the EOA. “When you get down to it it’s all in the foundation of what we do as a country. Something has to change or our country will stop seeking to improve. I don’t want to live in a stangnant America.” Echoed William Farlight. He was the first to actually suggest doing something bigger, something beyond the school. Studying for a major in government, he was able to explore with the group how to make this into a reality. Dr. Kathryn Humnick of the communications department said, “I had felt pressed to act on this issue for a long time, the prospect of actually creating a group that could change things inspired me. I knew other people felt that way, so we just needed to connect with them”

The EOA group at Biola University soon reached out to other universities across the nation starting up similar programs. But it wasn’t enough for the small group to just form an activist party. “The problem wasn’t with one group or one idea, it’s the entire mindset of a Nation. We aren’t teaching our kids, we aren’t exploring new resources or protecting them. Discovery is what made our nation and lack of it will destroy us if we don’t change something.” Said EOA’s head of directors, Nathan Seefeldt.

With funding completely from donation they soon formed a political party, taking stances on the issues that would “restore a heart of discovery, wonder, and excitement.” The EOA became the Exploration Party. In fact after only 3 years start they decided to present a presedential candidate. “What people don’t realize is that our ideals actually serve to rebuild the nation in economy and equality as well. Our stances on relevant issues set us apart, and our goal gives us a strong platform to build off of,” says the Party’s now central member and future candidate, Michael Vieceli. “When you create new projects you create new jobs, and when those projects gain resources that pay back into the nation, you build the economy. The education we want to provide is an investment in the future generation.” Dr. Humnick adds.

The party grew from small beginnings, but expects major growth within the next four years. Its symbol, appropriately conforming with their “green goals” is the penguin. It is an animal who guards their young just as the Party wants to invest in the youth of America. The spirit of exploration that America once had to find out about these crreatures is something  the Exploration Party seek to preserve. Dr. Humnick adds, “When I look at the penguin I see the contrast of black and white. I see what our nation could be and what it is. I see the blackness of space that hasn’t been discovered and I see something beautiful like what our nation could be.” The EP pleads with the nation to recognize what is falling apart and bring it to restoration.

“We want a better America, you do to. Help us help you build that up. Lets use the foundation we have and build up from there. Build better from there. Lets explore what America could be and make it happen.” –Michael Vieceli

Article and interviews by: Elsie Kettles


News Headlines Relating to the EP

Exploration Party Aims to Increase Knowledge

Recent interviews and research into the newly founded Exploration party revealed their goals. They say that the reason they emphasize exploration and discovery is to simply increase our knowledge and understanding of the world around us. “The Age of Discovery is far from over,” they claim, and most people are starting to agree with them…Click here for the full article

The Wetland Scandal


Scandal! Exploration party’s plans to build a dam In partnership with the EOA collapse when the environmental impact on surrounding wetland areas is exposed. The party claims to support greener energy, but their dismissal of other environmental impacts caused many to question the legitimacy of their “green” claims. Shortly after this issue exploded, presidential canidate for the emerging Exploration Party, Michael Vieceli, dropped out of the race. The party is still campaining but in no hope to gain votes, only to garner support for this grassroots party. Many believe it is because of this scandal that has recently been in the limelight. The Wetland Scandal… Click here for the full article.

For a response clearing up misconceptions about the scandal, view the EP blog at https://vieceligov2015hca.wordpress.com

New Party Explodes on the Scene

With the election coming up, most people are digging deep into politics. The Republicans and Democrats have strong candidates, as well as independent parties. However, a new party has burst onto the scene: The Exploration Party.

The Exploration Party, which emphasizes exploration of earth and space, and the development of science, is taking the nation by storm. With its rising popularity, it is surprising that they have not continued with their candidacy for the Presidency.

“We need to focus on establishing our party with a strong foundation before we throw ourselves into the running. The Exploration Party, though, intends to run in 2020.” said spokesperson Michael Vieceli… Click here for the full article

I have a proposal to make

Amendments. They are great aren’t they? They keep us from doing stupid things with our country (or try to anyways) and they protect our rights (or try to anyways). It’s really hard to get them proposed – that is get a 2/3 majority of states to call for a convention, or get 2/3 majority of both the houses—and passed—that is get ¾ of the state to approve it. All the fractions seem a little bit difficult when you think of how many people have to agree…and how often they all disagree.


  1. We need an amendment that stops our national debt- we keep raising that ceiling and one day the building will be too tall and topple over. An amendment that requires a balanced budget, or puts restrictions on deficit spending is a must have. This idea was actually once submitted (read *here) and it was a pretty good idea. Hopefully we could actually get it the votes behind it this time.

*Due to technical difficulties click here instead: https://newrepublic.com/article/114337/28th-amendment-what-should-our-next-amendment-be


  1. As we know not only is it difficult to propose and pass an amendment, but getting bills to become laws is the same struggle*. We need an amendment that shortens the process, one either detailing what kinds of bills should be more immediately addressed (guidelines for the steering committee somewhat) and or addressing the necessity of joint committees so that the bill can be appealing to both house and senate quicker.



  1. We have it set up so the president can’t really serve more than two terms. Great right? An ever changing leader for an ever changing country. But what about senators? What about members of the house and governors and all those people? We need an amendment that limits their terms- especially so they actually try to do what’s best for the states and government rather than what will get them re-elected. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think this would help.


  1. An amendment talking about record keeping in government and the right to information. Making stuff like that open to the public. I would kind of like to know what the government is up to that they aren’t telling us…but sadly an amendment that shows their secrets would never get passed because it would have to be passed by them. Oh well, perhaps its for the best. Then again it could turn into 1984…


  1. While we’re talking about things they don’t want us to know—how about an amendment that protects the privacy of our emails and phone calls and generally protects against the NSA…maybe? Yes, no? I want my life—and yes I want it protected from terrorists, but I want it to be mine as well, not the government’s.

Mr. President vs. Mr. President (past)


When it comes to presidents, I’m afraid I don’t pay much attention to current events and whose role is what in making them happen and in reacting to them. However, I also think that if I did know a lot, it would still be hard to definitively say. All Presidents have their faults; all presidents are left with the problems of their predecessors and are challenged with the new events of their term. Natural and wartime disasters make it impossible to objectively compare presidents, because they act in a different world. This is no controlled environment for studying and deciding. We all bring our biases, and we try to set them aside, but this is in a large part a matter of opinion and trying to sort out the evidences that might help support yours. My opinion? Bush was better. Here’s why.

Many people claim that Bush left the country in shambles and Obama is doing his best to clean up after him, and most think he is doing a pretty good job. A large part of this is in pulling troops out of Afghanistan.

However, during the time of Bush’s administration, we needed the “War on Terror.” American’s were looking to their president to do something after the events of 9/11. We all may not agree that this was the best way, but in truth it might have been. When a state or entity threatens our liberty, we must act. (Here is a list of some more reasons).

President Obama pulled out these troops in an inefficient and messy manner, and left the unstable country on its own.

9/11 was a tragic event to which Bush reacted with action. That is the role of a president especially in the position as commander and chief. President Obama, however, has created a war with drones, a secret “war” that strikes without warning and sometimes it seems without reason (read here).

Many people praise Obama for creating social reforms and legislature, things like Obama Care and other welfare. However in doing this he has majorly increased our national debt. For arguments sake, say he needed it to “fix” Bush’s ruined economy. If these things were working, shouldn’t the spending have leveled off by now? But no, it has increased. Spending spending spending has led us into major debt under Obama, and I don’t see it going down anytime soon. If Bush left a mess, Obama is leaving a much bigger one, even though he has had four years for the so called “clean up.” Debt is up, unemployment is down, and polls are saying most of America likes Bush better. (Comparison between Bush and Obama here). So what does that tell us? We are lacking something in our current president, lacking much more than Bush was ever lacking. He was a strong President who led us into action when we needed that kind of leader. I say we still need that kind of leader. Where is that kind of man now? Not in Obama, or in Donald Trump, that’s for sure.

The Founding Fathers and the Fourth Amendment

Privacy. Privacy and security were some of the major aspects of freedom that our founding fathers wanted to protect. They feared tyranny that came from no regard for these rights, that’s why they wrote the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment protects against unlawful, unwarranted searches…so why is the NSA spying on us without our permission?

Our founding fathers found it absolutely necessary to include an amendment or provision that guarded against search and seizure without permission (Article 1). They wanted to prevent a “writs of assistance” situation, in which anyone, whether suspicious or not, could have their privacy invaded at any moment without just cause or reason. “These writs authorized British agents to conduct broad searches and seizures of anybody at anytime even without the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing.” Just like the NSA. To read about how some covert scanning by the NSA happens, click here.


Our buildings may still need search warrants or reasonable cause to get into (in theory), but no longer our computers, our cell phones, and other devices. These things are still our property, and our emails are our intellectual property. These things are a natural and inalienable right to hold. They should not be stolen from us without consent. Even in the fourth amendment itself we see language that would apply to our emails and information that was not intended for the public. The people of the United States are “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” Effects…what does that mean? Things we own, everything we keep private.

In this case you could also debate whether or not airport security check can be rightly enforced. Is it unreasonable to search every person entering an airport? Well, is there probable cause? No, so it becomes in our founding fathers’ eyes unlawful. But we have decided to choose better safety rather than better privacy, and we subject our persons to a most likely unreasonable search.

In the NSA’s case, we haven’t had a say. In fact we haven’t always even had knowledge of it. This all completely goes against what our founding fathers envisioned.

The Top Ten Things that make a Government Suck.

Here is a list, which follows a loosely prioritized order down to the number one thing that makes a government bad.

  1. Highly unequal and majorly separated social classes. This often leads to a stagnant government that doesn’t benefit the lower class. Because of a major separation, the lower class has difficulty gaining a voice.5c5e6d54ac900051a560d22cfe9910f9
  1. Mob rule. Here is an article with an interesting perspective on the concept of majority rule. When we only listen to the majority, we get a lot of uneducated voices, or people too weak to stand up for an idea that isn’t “popular.” This is not good for a government that wants to do what is best for all and not just go with the flow.
  1. Too high taxation. Let’s face it, nobody likes having their hard earned money taken away from them to pay for projects that benefit those who didn’t work hard. This creates unrest amongst citizens which is dangerous to government. Government needs loyalty and support, along with an aspect of trust. Otherwise the people tend to act in fear, or are led to only feel like they have the choice to pick the lesser of two evils. High taxation also just gives the government way too much power. Which I will touch on as a bad thing later.
  1. No taxation. How do you expect a government to protect and aid you without any means to do it? People aren’t always generous, or willing to give even when they know the project will lead to their benefit. Taxes ensure things get done (read more here on why taxes are important).
  1. No representatives, solely direct voting/action. In other words no clear leader(s). In a crisis situation, you can’t always call for a vote you need someone who has the authority to take action.
  1. Too little power. Like I said, you need to be able to take action. If you don’t have any control or power, how can you do the good things?
  1. Too much power. We can’t have everything micromanaged, or else rights start to disappear and everyone is at the mercy of those in control. We must remain independent to a degree. We must be able to voice our concerns and be heard.
  1. Zero checks and balances. Too much power is bad, it’s even worse when only one person has it; then no one can stop them.
  1. Uneducated voters/representatives. Stupid people bug me…when it comes to them making major decisions that affect the way I live my life. Winston Churchill said that, ““The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”  If people who don’t understand the way the world or the government work try and make rules to control and help it, they will fail. Education is a must (read here for more discussion).
  1. Bad people. It’s inescapable; government has to have people in it and they are going to be flawed and well…just really messed up. Good people make a good government. Can you tell me where to find some of those? Thanks.

All for Aristocracy


Aristocracy is not only a practical and philosophically sound government, we also see that its values and ideas are supported clearly in scripture.

The whole idea of an Aristocracy is rule of the few. This rule prevents those unfit and undesiring of power from being in a ruling position. The ruling class has already proven themselves worthy. I quote a short excerpt from a study article which says, “ the idea of aristocracy is that not everyone is fit to rule” we see this confirmed in James 3:1, where James writes, “Not many of you should become teachers.”

We also see that those who are wise, who are appointed to be “teachers” or rulers, are described in scripture to prove themselves just as aristocracy tests and proves them. “Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life; by deeds.” James 3:13 says. Those in power are the wise and superior, they have proved themselves by being a part of the ruling class, working their way to wealth or prosperity or being in control of such things.

Scripture also points out some criteria for leaders: “if you know [God’s] will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law;  if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark,  an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth—“ teach yourself and others. It is described that those who know they are the “guides” should become them, which is what takes place when a ruling class is put in place.

“Aristocracy means the rule of the few best—the morally and intellectually superior—governing in the interest of the entire population.” (read more here) We set up the best to rule, because if the people were all involved in ruling themselves, they would be like blind men trying to lead. Matthew 15:14 “Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

So why not just have one leader then? Avoid all the blindness. I’m sure you monarchists might say this. But read Ecclesiastes 4:

“Two are better than one,
because they have a good return for their labor:
If either of them falls down,
one can help the other up.
But pity anyone who falls
and has no one to help them up.
Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm.
But how can one keep warm alone?
Though one may be overpowered,
two can defend themselves.
A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.”

It is clear we need good leaders, not everyone is fit to be one, but we do need more than one man, for two are better than one and the three stranded cord doesn’t easily break. So we put in power those who have shown themselves wise and understanding by their good lives, and we remain in the perfect aristocracy, in which the whole of society is improved. For this reason, we are unsurpassed in our governing.

Government: Collectives, compromises, and conflict avoidance (hopefully)

Government is by definition in control over a state or community. So why would it make sense to have anyone other than that community deciding upon its role (unless perhaps its an omniscient God)?


Of course one could claim that the people are corrupted or ignorant and will not be able to choose a good governor for themselves, but how could another group claim to be better, or an individual? It is better for all the people to decide so that if they decide wrongly at least they have themselves to blame (though you know they won’t). Therefore the whole collective should discuss what they find to be best for the community.

After healthy discussion, I see no other option than to form a plan and put it to a vote. Having the decision made by force or violence would immediately set off those opposed to the idea. This portion of the community would then be against the government from its very beginning.

Of course even in a vote not everyone wins and some people would disagree. If the number is small enough, these people could be given the option to state their worries, hoping for some kind of compromise. If none occurred, this group could learn to live under the government, move out on their own, or leave to join a different state. Starting off with opposition could be devastating, but killing those in opposition is not the solution, it immediately suppresses any further improvement suggested by the people, for they will fear they are considered in opposition and will be killed the same. It is better to let live and try to prove them wrong.

If more people disagree than agree with the government, it should not be put in place. However, then we get complicated, because what if the rich are numbered more than the poor and choose a government to benefit only themselves. So there must be represented in each class a majority, and yes it may take longer, but it’s best not to end up with the poor wanting to start a rebellion like in the hunger games, and I don’t think that the community will want to make all possessions common like in Utopia so that there is no class. People are selfish, and anything like a utopia of perfection will not work, though we might wish it to.

Because of this nature, and man’s desire for power, there have to be major checks and balances on the whole process of government, checks and balances you can usually achieve in a democracy. Democracy is a wonderful thing, but the bureaucratic inefficiencies it may lend itself to (such as in the USA) are too much. The USA created checks and balances, but we are checking too much and nothing is getting done. Depending on the size of the state, not that much power needs to be given to smaller governments and more can be centralized. If this happens, all you need to be sure of is that enough of a variety of representatives are present in the central government. Choosing some from each income bracket and different locations hopefully ensures a more fair government, and give it the ability to stop unfair taxing and other laws that are too powerful.

No government will be ideal, this is no utopia and people are inherently prone to corruption and folly. But they can try their best as a whole, and have themselves to blame when things don’t work out.

Or they can… you know, blame someone else and start a war or rebellion. Either way.download

Katy Humnick

Hola! Aloha! Greetings! Gi suilon! (that last one’s elvish)

Salutations! Welcome to school, and fall, and senior year! Or more specifically my blog for government class.

2014-11-08 02.45.53

Depressing isn’t it? Well if you need a bit of encouragement after that…

2014-10-12 01.46.50

And if you aren’t sure what to do after that..

.2014-11-09 18.52.41

My cousin (4 years old) lives by this philosophy. He finds it quite effective.

well, so long!


Auf wiedersehen goodniiiight.

Au due, au due, to you and you– okay. I’m done now.