The bloom of the red algae causes an effect called the red tide. It’s nothing more then the spread of algae, normally red, taking all the nutrients and oxygen out of the water. This spread has no care as to what ocean it is in or what coast it is affecting, all it cares about is spreading out and consuming everything in its path. The red tide does not improve anything; it only leaves dead fish and a dying ocean. Our current political and economic situation is a red tide, a growing movement that has little care for what the outcome will be. Just as the red tide has no concern for what ocean or sea it has affected the political direction our Nation is taking has no concern for which party or political action group it consumes, no matter how large or small. All this tide cares about is how much can it eat for itself.
There are plenty of political talk shows on both the television and the radio these days that will feed you all the rhetoric you can stand, regardless of which side of the political fence you stand on. The scary part is when you start really listening to the both sides and actually start to use the brains you were given at birth. If you will clean the wax out of your ears and listen without thinking about which party the talker is on you will hear the same things being said, sure it may sound like there are differing views but they all come to the same end. They all want a bigger Government; its how they want to get us there that is different.
The Occupy crowd and their all over the map list of demands and complaints made me really start listening. The Occupy crowd is protesting the bankers and investors; they are labeling those individuals as the cause for all the woes we are feeling in America today. Their demands include everything from student loan forgiveness all the way up to driving the heads of the Federal Reserve right out of the country. The Occupy movement has now gone so far as to form a pseudo Government, including a finance working group that controls how the donations they have received are used. Keep in mind that many in the Occupy movement are anarchists. I wonder how they feel about their new Government. The media is reporting that somewhere in the neighborhood of $500,000 have been donated to the Occupy Wall Street group and is being held in Amalgamated Bank which touts itself as the only American bank that is %100 Union owned. On line contributions are being processed through an on-line company that is a subsidiary of Visa, a New York Stock Exchange traded company. In other words the Occupy movement is railing against the man and Government while asking the Government to do more for them. They are also emulating the Government by setting up committees they are calling working groups to handle their finances, comfort, food and other necessities. They have entrusted their capital to a financial institution, which they are protesting, capital funneled through a company they are protesting against. The only thing they are not doing that the rest of the Nation is doing is actually earning that money through honest labor of the mind or body, that part they are leaving up to those gullible enough to make donations. The Occupy protestors want to take from the rich, unless it’s the rich they like. There have been several celebrities that have been outspoken about which side they stand on, the interesting thing is when they show up to support the 21st century Woodstock wannabes in their limos. The Occupiers, in all their infinite and misguided wisdom, welcome them with open arms. The right wing talk show media is having a field day with that one. To the right wing media all I have to say is, watch what you are saying, you are doing the same thing in many ways.
Some of the issues actually match those that the Tea Party, for example, has been talking about. The one area that I believe the two sides of the political nickel differ is in the area of the being taken care of by the Federal Government. The Progressive movement wishes to transform the Federal Government into their Robin Hood that will redistribute all the cash; at least until it all runs out. The Conservative side of the fence wants Daddy Warbucks which will keep handing out cash to support the never ending spread of democracy without asking questions; by the way, Daddy Warbucks can be defined as the working class of America.
The “Conservatives” want to string up the President for sending troops into Libya and now Uganda but they want to keep sending troops into Iraq, Afghanistan and if they had their way into Iran. The “Conservatives” want to reduce our foreign aide to help tackle the budget problems we have but that does not mean to stop foreign aide to Israel. Anyone who talks about stopping foreign aide or stopping our continuing intervention into other Nations political affairs is thought to be against defending our Nations National interests. Justify the National interest that can not be handled through free trade agreements. There is also the right wing stance on preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons; did anyone prevent us from getting nuclear weapons? There is the fear being created by Iran parking warships off our coastline. What country has parked ships off every Nations coastline for decades? What country has sent troops into all parts of the world whether they were invited or not? What country has Military bases all other the world? If you answered the United States you would be right. Who should the world be afraid of? I can not decide whether we think we are the keeper of morality, which is not evident if you look at our own country, or are we so arrogant that we believe everyone else in the world is suppose to be like us. Regardless of which one it is it has put us on a path to the destruction of our own way of life. So I guess the attitude of it’s a bad thing unless it’s something we like is good only for the Conservative side of the fence.
I’m also getting very tired of hearing many of the right wing talk show hosts trying to back up their arguments with the Constitution. Have they really read the Constitution? If they have read it do they understand it? While they are spouting off about this Nation needing to get back to the Constitution they are calling President Lincoln one of the greatest Presidents this Nation has seen. Now before everyone starts to jump up and down and call me all sorts of names let me continue. President Lincoln violated the Constitution, plain and simple. Political motivations were the only reasons for his actions; he did not want to go down in history as the President that was in office when the Union was broken. Unfortunately the President did not care as much for the slaves as history has made out. All one has to do is to read the Emancipation Proclamation; it only freed slaves in those States that were not under control of the Union. Growing up I looked at President Lincoln as one of the great men in the history of our country, now as an adult, one that has actually tried to learn the Constitution and what it means, I have a different take on it. I understand why President Lincoln did what he did but I have to wonder how many American lives would have been saved if the President had allowed the South to secede and how long slavery would have survived. Personally I believe slavery was dying of natural causes and if the South had seceded trade treaties between the North and South could have stipulated trade with slave owning plantations or non slave owning plantations. Economy is a stronger weapon then bullets in the long run. If you are going to use the Constitution as one of your tools to fight the Progressive movement you can not compromise, you have to accept that not all Presidents followed the Constitution, in fact, most Presidents violated the Constitution. When trying to sell the Constitution to the voters you should not use a President that was possibly one of the biggest violators of the Constitution in trade for political history.
I have another pet peeve with some of the right wing talk show hosts; they like to quote parts of George Washington’s farewell speech, particularly the parts about morals and religion. Those are good lessons to be learned but there is more to that speech. In President George Washington’s farewell speech he warned us of becoming entangled in the politics of other Nations. He warned that while we should trade with all, political entanglements would only end in us becoming entangled in their wars. If you are going to use the Presidents address as part of your talking points then use it all, learn all the lessons he was trying to teach us, not just the ones that you like. Oh yea, that’s right, it’s the same as we don’t like the rich except the ones we like.
The moral to the above is that in order to fix the things that are driving America off the cliff, as the Politicians like to say, we have to be willing to take a critical look at the side we think we support as well as the other side. I personally believe in the Constitution but I’m not naive enough to believe that we can just jump back to following the Constitution and all will be ducky. We are going to go through a rough time, in fact, no matter whom the winner is and which side you support, we are going to go through a rough time. It’s time to decide what you would like to see at the end of the rough times, do you want freedom and liberty or do you want to be taken care of from cradle to grave like they were in George Orwell’s novel 1984? Just because things have always happened a certain way, or you have always voted a certain party does not mean that it’s right or that it’s going to continue to go that way. We all have to take the blinders off and listen to what is being said, think about what it really means; then you decide for yourself what the best choice is. Stop blindly listening to the talking heads. Once you do that the only other thing I suggest is to get involved, even if that only means that you vote your conscience, whether it is the party line or not.
Steve Avery
10/26/2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
Political Causes and Effects III
Taxation
Benjamin Franklin once said, “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”. Never have truer words been spoken, especially today. As one of the Founders of this Nation I have a hard time believing Dr. Franklin envisioned the tax burden we now have when he spoke those words. True, we have to have some taxation in order to have a Government to handle the affairs of this Nation. Contrary to what some may think, we have to have a Federal Government, what we do not need to have is an overpowering Federal Government with out of control spending and a tax code that is so large and convoluted that no one, not even the people that wrote it, can understand.
Over the past several years there has been talk of revising or repealing the tax code to come up with something that is a little easier to understand and a tax structure that spreads the burden and bit more evenly then it is currently. Of course neither of these is being welcomed with open arms, mainly because a simpler tax code would expose the dirty dealings of our Politicians and close legal loopholes that tax lawyers use to help their clients pay less in taxes. Having a system that is more evenly apportioned among the population would mean that those in the lower incomes might actually have to pay taxes. Current reports put the entire tax burden on somewhere less then half the working population with the upper 5% of those paying somewhere better the 40% of that tax burden. Somehow that does not sound fair to me but the rallying cry of many seems to be that the rich, those in the upper 5% of income earners, must pay their fair share. It would be easier to understand if they, those that are shouting that cry, would just say they want the rich to support everyone else and be done with it. Since that is not going to happen let’s look at my idea of taxation.
The first enumerated power for the Congress states “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”. There is nothing in there that states that the taxes have to be collected from individual citizens directly. It is my opinion that in order to reign in the current Federal Government and to keep future Federal Governments in check there should be no Federal income, sales or capital gains tax and for that matter no taxes of any type directed at the individual citizens. The Federal Government must submit an annual budget that should reflect what the Federal Government needs to perform the duties that are enumerated in the Constitution, nothing more. If the Congress worked the way it is suppose to work they would review the budget and give their yea or nay based on whether or not the budget supported the powers in the Constitution. Once Congress approves the budget the State Governments would then receive, for lack of a better term, a bill from the Federal Government on the tax owed by the States based on population or land mass that they shall pay to support the Federal Government. I personally prefer it to be based on population, which would be in keeping with what I believe the Founders meant when they said “uniform throughout the United State”. How the individual States raise the taxes is up to them based on their Constitutions and what their legislatures and citizens decide. States could go for income taxes, sales taxes, a combination of both or bake sales for that matter, as long as they pay their fair share to support the Federal Government.
A large central Government trying to establish a tax code for a population that is as large as the United States and as diverse as the United States just does not make sense. The citizens start to believe their vote doesn’t count and they rely entirely on their elected officials. Bringing the tax burden down to smaller individual scales will make it easier, and hopefully more likely, for the citizens to pay attention to where their money is going and how it is collected. Bringing it down to a State level will also end, hopefully, much of the bickering back and forth about who is and who is not paying taxes or their fair share.
There is another benefit to this plan. If you are not happy about the way taxes are collected in you State you have the option of moving to a State that is more in line with your thinking. Of course that sounds easier then it really is, many people have ties to their property or State while others may not feel they can afford to move. Herein lays another benefit, when the decisions, the voting, are made by a smaller segment of the population, State versus entire Country, each vote counts for more. This would also make it easier to contact your legislatures, many of whom may be from your own neighborhood, to voice your opinion and concerns.
I know there are going to be problems with a plan like this so let’s explore a few that came to mind and what may be the solutions to them. One problem is that there has to be some way of guaranteeing that the States pay. The Constitution states that the Federal Government will provide for the common defense, if a State does not pay, they should not be under the protection of the United States. The same would be true with trade agreements made with foreign Nations and with maintaining regular trade with the other States in the Union. Naturally to go along with this the 17th Amendment would have to be repealed to place the proper checks and balances back in Congress. Another problem, and one that would be difficult to overcome, would be convincing Congress that this is the right thing to do. They would have to be convinced to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments the write an Amendment for a balanced budget within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, to include paying back the current debt, and an Amendment to make my plan legal and Constitutional. Congress loves their power so this will be one of the largest hurdles to clear. Another problem is that the Governors and the State Legislatures are comfortable letting the Federal Government do the heavy lifting, a far cry from 150 years ago. States would actually have to rely on themselves, no more Federal money coming back down the line. The last and possibly the hardest hurdle to clear would be convincing the people. There is a large percentage of the population that believes the Federal Government is the all knowing and all doing ruler of the country. They enjoy receiving their Federal benefits and they know that it is easier convince one group over convincing 50 groups. The same is true with special interest groups and their lobbyists.
I know this plan is not perfect and I’m sure I’ve over simplified it. The reason we initially had a Republic with indirect democracy was so that we could elect public officials that were to listen to us and put our ideas into workable forms. This plan would also put teeth back in both the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights. There are those that are talking about secession being the only way to save our Nation, maybe, but wouldn’t you rather try just getting back to a true Union of States that are banding together for the important things that need to be handled at a central level while maintaining their own powers and their own personalities?
Steve Avery
10/17/2011
Benjamin Franklin once said, “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”. Never have truer words been spoken, especially today. As one of the Founders of this Nation I have a hard time believing Dr. Franklin envisioned the tax burden we now have when he spoke those words. True, we have to have some taxation in order to have a Government to handle the affairs of this Nation. Contrary to what some may think, we have to have a Federal Government, what we do not need to have is an overpowering Federal Government with out of control spending and a tax code that is so large and convoluted that no one, not even the people that wrote it, can understand.
Over the past several years there has been talk of revising or repealing the tax code to come up with something that is a little easier to understand and a tax structure that spreads the burden and bit more evenly then it is currently. Of course neither of these is being welcomed with open arms, mainly because a simpler tax code would expose the dirty dealings of our Politicians and close legal loopholes that tax lawyers use to help their clients pay less in taxes. Having a system that is more evenly apportioned among the population would mean that those in the lower incomes might actually have to pay taxes. Current reports put the entire tax burden on somewhere less then half the working population with the upper 5% of those paying somewhere better the 40% of that tax burden. Somehow that does not sound fair to me but the rallying cry of many seems to be that the rich, those in the upper 5% of income earners, must pay their fair share. It would be easier to understand if they, those that are shouting that cry, would just say they want the rich to support everyone else and be done with it. Since that is not going to happen let’s look at my idea of taxation.
The first enumerated power for the Congress states “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”. There is nothing in there that states that the taxes have to be collected from individual citizens directly. It is my opinion that in order to reign in the current Federal Government and to keep future Federal Governments in check there should be no Federal income, sales or capital gains tax and for that matter no taxes of any type directed at the individual citizens. The Federal Government must submit an annual budget that should reflect what the Federal Government needs to perform the duties that are enumerated in the Constitution, nothing more. If the Congress worked the way it is suppose to work they would review the budget and give their yea or nay based on whether or not the budget supported the powers in the Constitution. Once Congress approves the budget the State Governments would then receive, for lack of a better term, a bill from the Federal Government on the tax owed by the States based on population or land mass that they shall pay to support the Federal Government. I personally prefer it to be based on population, which would be in keeping with what I believe the Founders meant when they said “uniform throughout the United State”. How the individual States raise the taxes is up to them based on their Constitutions and what their legislatures and citizens decide. States could go for income taxes, sales taxes, a combination of both or bake sales for that matter, as long as they pay their fair share to support the Federal Government.
A large central Government trying to establish a tax code for a population that is as large as the United States and as diverse as the United States just does not make sense. The citizens start to believe their vote doesn’t count and they rely entirely on their elected officials. Bringing the tax burden down to smaller individual scales will make it easier, and hopefully more likely, for the citizens to pay attention to where their money is going and how it is collected. Bringing it down to a State level will also end, hopefully, much of the bickering back and forth about who is and who is not paying taxes or their fair share.
There is another benefit to this plan. If you are not happy about the way taxes are collected in you State you have the option of moving to a State that is more in line with your thinking. Of course that sounds easier then it really is, many people have ties to their property or State while others may not feel they can afford to move. Herein lays another benefit, when the decisions, the voting, are made by a smaller segment of the population, State versus entire Country, each vote counts for more. This would also make it easier to contact your legislatures, many of whom may be from your own neighborhood, to voice your opinion and concerns.
I know there are going to be problems with a plan like this so let’s explore a few that came to mind and what may be the solutions to them. One problem is that there has to be some way of guaranteeing that the States pay. The Constitution states that the Federal Government will provide for the common defense, if a State does not pay, they should not be under the protection of the United States. The same would be true with trade agreements made with foreign Nations and with maintaining regular trade with the other States in the Union. Naturally to go along with this the 17th Amendment would have to be repealed to place the proper checks and balances back in Congress. Another problem, and one that would be difficult to overcome, would be convincing Congress that this is the right thing to do. They would have to be convinced to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments the write an Amendment for a balanced budget within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, to include paying back the current debt, and an Amendment to make my plan legal and Constitutional. Congress loves their power so this will be one of the largest hurdles to clear. Another problem is that the Governors and the State Legislatures are comfortable letting the Federal Government do the heavy lifting, a far cry from 150 years ago. States would actually have to rely on themselves, no more Federal money coming back down the line. The last and possibly the hardest hurdle to clear would be convincing the people. There is a large percentage of the population that believes the Federal Government is the all knowing and all doing ruler of the country. They enjoy receiving their Federal benefits and they know that it is easier convince one group over convincing 50 groups. The same is true with special interest groups and their lobbyists.
I know this plan is not perfect and I’m sure I’ve over simplified it. The reason we initially had a Republic with indirect democracy was so that we could elect public officials that were to listen to us and put our ideas into workable forms. This plan would also put teeth back in both the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights. There are those that are talking about secession being the only way to save our Nation, maybe, but wouldn’t you rather try just getting back to a true Union of States that are banding together for the important things that need to be handled at a central level while maintaining their own powers and their own personalities?
Steve Avery
10/17/2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
We Have Exactly What He Asked For
In the very first article I wrote I talked of the things that were on the horizon for us as a Nation. It was pure speculation based on the events that were taking place. Looking at the TARP and stimulus packages that were being passed to bailout poorly run companies and then the Healthcare and Cap and Trade bills that were being proposed led me to believe that the administration and Congress were steering us down a path to Socialism. I wrote of the need for all to pull their heads from the sand and get educated on the issues and the up and coming politicians.
The Tea Parties started out doing just this. They were encouraging the masses to educate themselves and to properly vet the candidates on the ballots. Their efforts showed in the 2010 mid-term elections, somewhat. The problem with those elections was that not all the candidates the Tea Party supported turned out to be true defenders of the Constitution. Another problem with the mid-term elections and the success of the Tea Party was the attention the Tea Party has received from the GOP and from the Democratic Party. The GOP has tried to incorporate the Tea Party into the GOP, seeing that a fair number of Americans are starting to open their eyes and pay attention. Unfortunately this incorporation into the GOP will only corrupt the Tea Party into just another extension of the GOP; this is not to say all those that call themselves Tea Partiers or all Tea Party groups are incorporated into the GOP, only the idea of the Tea Party. The true Tea Party is not doing enough to separate themselves from the GOP and call out those that are trying to claim a Tea Party and GOP allegiance.
The Democratic base on the other hand saw the Tea Party as a roadblock to their plans. Specifically they saw the awakening of the People as the roadblock. The leadership of the Democratic Party and of the current administration came out and openly downplayed the Tea Party movement as being a front for the rich. The Democratic Party called the Tea Party movement an Astroturf movement backed by the rich elite of corporations. Truth is that the Democratic Party saw that the Tea Party movement and anyone that believed in the Constitution and what it stood for stood between them and their plans for as large a central Government as they could possible create. The Democratic Party, and many in the GOP, dreams of a Government that has control over every aspect of the Country, including our lives and how we live them.
When the uprising in Egypt occurred the administration saw the opportunity they had been waiting for. The chance to ignite a spark for the movement towards Socialism couldn’t be better unless they had planned it themselves, maybe even better since they can call it spontaneous, grass roots. Our President and other members of his administration and Congress openly supported the protestors in Egypt and then again in Libya. The President came right out and praised the youth for protesting for what they felt was right, encouraging the same in America. Lenin is credited with coining the term “useful idiots” to describe Soviet sympathizers, persons that really had no idea of what they wanted or what they were headed for. The behind the scenes organizers, the ones that never get their hands dirty are the ones that know what the ultimate goal is, the ones on the streets causing chaos, they are the “useful idiots”. The Egyptian protests started in Jan of 2011, then came the Libyan protests and the Wisconsin State Teachers Union protests in Feb, who could ask for a better setup to stir up all the radicals that really do not know what they want, they just want chaos and a reason to protest. Washington has exactly what they asked for with the “Occupy Wall Street” protests.
From all reports I have heard there is not a clear purpose to be had in the crowd; I have even gone to their website and the only thing I can find is that they consider themselves the 99%ers and they are against the 1%ers. The 1%ers they are talking about are the rich that according to just about every report you can find on who pays taxes are the ones that are footing better then 40% of the total tax bill. These are the People that are paying the majority of the taxes that support these supposed 99%. You have to give them credit, or at least the ones behind the scenes, they are quickly spreading across the Nation, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, Atlanta, where’s next?
The Minority Leader of the House has come right out and phrased the protestors and their grass roots efforts, grass roots? Unions are supporting the protestors, how is that grass roots? This Government, pick your party, has been trying to get us into a Socialistic Society. Whether you like it or not you need to face it. By keeping the protestors going on Wall Street the Government can wait until things have gotten to a point where only the Government, at least in their eyes, can fix things. Remember, the United States has appointed itself the Police Force of the World. This Government will not allow another Country to come in as we did in Libya, for that matter true American Patriots will not all it. But the Government will appoint themselves to be the only ones that can stop the protests, when the timing is right for them. The Government will use these protests to put more regulations on Wall Street and all those filthy bankers and investors. This will be done under the guise of appeasing the protestors and giving the masses what they think they want. Never mind the fact that those bankers and investors are the ones that start businesses, businesses that employee people and produce things. It’s not the Unions that produce; it’s the members of the Unions that are being used by the Unions as cash cows. It’s not the Government that produces jobs; it’s the bankers, the investors and those that have real ideas.
For close to a century or more now the Government has been slowly but surely steering us on a course towards total Governmental control. I can not put my finger on the single event that awoke the People that actually believe in liberty, believe in freedom and believe that yes we need a Government, but not a Government with total control over our very lives. Maybe it was a slow awakening but it has been one. It has been one that has also sparked the progressive movement out of hiding and into full gear. There is one goal in Washington, that goal is for Washington to be the center of all power. I don’t remember where I wrote it but I fear that if given the right circumstances we may have seen the last Presidential election. With enough unrest in the Country I can see this President and this administration either pushing through legislation for complete martial law over the country or something similar; only after things get beyond the control of the local Government. Remember, the local Governments will do nothing against the protests that might anger the Federal Government. The States have lost their power, they gave it up to the Federal Government, and they gave up the Republic. If Congress; which has become almost as invalid as State Governments, does not pass legislation to take the power then I would not put it past this President to sign an Executive Order. I have questioned the validity of Executive Orders in the past and I can not find anything in the Constitution that authorizes them. Sure they may be assumed to be legal as far as carrying out the actual powers the President has, but not for legislating laws. Executive Orders have been misused by just about all the Presidents; we have never questioned it, why would we start now?
The progressive movement has claimed that anyone that believes in the Constitution wants a revolution, really? The Tea Party and those that want a limited Government are not the ones that are talking about violence; they are the ones that are talking about getting back to the Constitution or at least getting the Government under control and to curb the spending. The protestors on Wall Street have talked of revolution; the environmentalists have used violent tactics to pursue their end; not the Tea Party or the Constitutionalists. The question then is, do you want to save your Country or do you want to destroy it and change it to something different, something where personal liberty and freedom will be a thing of the past.
Steve Avery
10/10/11
The Tea Parties started out doing just this. They were encouraging the masses to educate themselves and to properly vet the candidates on the ballots. Their efforts showed in the 2010 mid-term elections, somewhat. The problem with those elections was that not all the candidates the Tea Party supported turned out to be true defenders of the Constitution. Another problem with the mid-term elections and the success of the Tea Party was the attention the Tea Party has received from the GOP and from the Democratic Party. The GOP has tried to incorporate the Tea Party into the GOP, seeing that a fair number of Americans are starting to open their eyes and pay attention. Unfortunately this incorporation into the GOP will only corrupt the Tea Party into just another extension of the GOP; this is not to say all those that call themselves Tea Partiers or all Tea Party groups are incorporated into the GOP, only the idea of the Tea Party. The true Tea Party is not doing enough to separate themselves from the GOP and call out those that are trying to claim a Tea Party and GOP allegiance.
The Democratic base on the other hand saw the Tea Party as a roadblock to their plans. Specifically they saw the awakening of the People as the roadblock. The leadership of the Democratic Party and of the current administration came out and openly downplayed the Tea Party movement as being a front for the rich. The Democratic Party called the Tea Party movement an Astroturf movement backed by the rich elite of corporations. Truth is that the Democratic Party saw that the Tea Party movement and anyone that believed in the Constitution and what it stood for stood between them and their plans for as large a central Government as they could possible create. The Democratic Party, and many in the GOP, dreams of a Government that has control over every aspect of the Country, including our lives and how we live them.
When the uprising in Egypt occurred the administration saw the opportunity they had been waiting for. The chance to ignite a spark for the movement towards Socialism couldn’t be better unless they had planned it themselves, maybe even better since they can call it spontaneous, grass roots. Our President and other members of his administration and Congress openly supported the protestors in Egypt and then again in Libya. The President came right out and praised the youth for protesting for what they felt was right, encouraging the same in America. Lenin is credited with coining the term “useful idiots” to describe Soviet sympathizers, persons that really had no idea of what they wanted or what they were headed for. The behind the scenes organizers, the ones that never get their hands dirty are the ones that know what the ultimate goal is, the ones on the streets causing chaos, they are the “useful idiots”. The Egyptian protests started in Jan of 2011, then came the Libyan protests and the Wisconsin State Teachers Union protests in Feb, who could ask for a better setup to stir up all the radicals that really do not know what they want, they just want chaos and a reason to protest. Washington has exactly what they asked for with the “Occupy Wall Street” protests.
From all reports I have heard there is not a clear purpose to be had in the crowd; I have even gone to their website and the only thing I can find is that they consider themselves the 99%ers and they are against the 1%ers. The 1%ers they are talking about are the rich that according to just about every report you can find on who pays taxes are the ones that are footing better then 40% of the total tax bill. These are the People that are paying the majority of the taxes that support these supposed 99%. You have to give them credit, or at least the ones behind the scenes, they are quickly spreading across the Nation, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, Atlanta, where’s next?
The Minority Leader of the House has come right out and phrased the protestors and their grass roots efforts, grass roots? Unions are supporting the protestors, how is that grass roots? This Government, pick your party, has been trying to get us into a Socialistic Society. Whether you like it or not you need to face it. By keeping the protestors going on Wall Street the Government can wait until things have gotten to a point where only the Government, at least in their eyes, can fix things. Remember, the United States has appointed itself the Police Force of the World. This Government will not allow another Country to come in as we did in Libya, for that matter true American Patriots will not all it. But the Government will appoint themselves to be the only ones that can stop the protests, when the timing is right for them. The Government will use these protests to put more regulations on Wall Street and all those filthy bankers and investors. This will be done under the guise of appeasing the protestors and giving the masses what they think they want. Never mind the fact that those bankers and investors are the ones that start businesses, businesses that employee people and produce things. It’s not the Unions that produce; it’s the members of the Unions that are being used by the Unions as cash cows. It’s not the Government that produces jobs; it’s the bankers, the investors and those that have real ideas.
For close to a century or more now the Government has been slowly but surely steering us on a course towards total Governmental control. I can not put my finger on the single event that awoke the People that actually believe in liberty, believe in freedom and believe that yes we need a Government, but not a Government with total control over our very lives. Maybe it was a slow awakening but it has been one. It has been one that has also sparked the progressive movement out of hiding and into full gear. There is one goal in Washington, that goal is for Washington to be the center of all power. I don’t remember where I wrote it but I fear that if given the right circumstances we may have seen the last Presidential election. With enough unrest in the Country I can see this President and this administration either pushing through legislation for complete martial law over the country or something similar; only after things get beyond the control of the local Government. Remember, the local Governments will do nothing against the protests that might anger the Federal Government. The States have lost their power, they gave it up to the Federal Government, and they gave up the Republic. If Congress; which has become almost as invalid as State Governments, does not pass legislation to take the power then I would not put it past this President to sign an Executive Order. I have questioned the validity of Executive Orders in the past and I can not find anything in the Constitution that authorizes them. Sure they may be assumed to be legal as far as carrying out the actual powers the President has, but not for legislating laws. Executive Orders have been misused by just about all the Presidents; we have never questioned it, why would we start now?
The progressive movement has claimed that anyone that believes in the Constitution wants a revolution, really? The Tea Party and those that want a limited Government are not the ones that are talking about violence; they are the ones that are talking about getting back to the Constitution or at least getting the Government under control and to curb the spending. The protestors on Wall Street have talked of revolution; the environmentalists have used violent tactics to pursue their end; not the Tea Party or the Constitutionalists. The question then is, do you want to save your Country or do you want to destroy it and change it to something different, something where personal liberty and freedom will be a thing of the past.
Steve Avery
10/10/11
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Political Causes and Effects II
Internal Non-Intervention
I was thinking about starting a business based on providing security and logistics for a group of companies that have common interests. In order to do this I knew I would have to come up with a contract that would state exactly what I would do for the companies and what I would expect out of them in return. I figured the best way to start would be with a mission statement of sorts, a statement of the overall goal of the services my company would provide stated in a way that would show the benefit to the companies.
The goal of the our company, which I will call SecLog for clarity, would be to provide external security to companies and to establish logistic services for commonly used and manufactured items between the contracted companies and those companies that operate outside our contract. Providing these services would enable the pooling of resources into one point in order to provide better services in these common areas. The companies under SecLog contract, while they may maintain their own internal security forces as they see fit they, will not have external security forces that could interfere with the SecLogs services. The contracted companies would also be restricted from forming their own contracts with companies outside the contract to prevent possible conflicts of interest within the SecLog contract. Additionally, SecLog would provide an arbitration and oversight service that would provide two additional services. First off, SecLog would provide for arbitration of issues that arise between companies within the SecLog contract. Secondly, they would have the responsibility to ensure all members within the SecLog contract, to include SecLog, operate within the confines of the contract. Any member of the contract that believes SecLog has overstepped the bounds of the contract or have not performed the services SecLog is contracted to perform may use this arbitration and oversight service to lodge a complaint and have it reviewed and resolved without fear of reprisal to the complainant. Other then the above restrictions on the companies within the contracted services there would be no other restrictions placed on the signers of this contract. SecLog will not interfere in the conducting of business within the individual companies under the SecLog contract. The fee for SecLogs services will be based on the number of employees each company employs.
After thinking about this I realized that what I was proposing was generally what the founders had done when they wrote the Constitution and formed the United States. The differences were minor; there was not a CEO that could not be fired, they provided for the election by the States of a head of the newly formed union, a President that could be fired if not performing the duties that were assigned to him. The restrictions that were placed on the States were like those that I placed on the companies that would the SecLog contract, no going outside the contracted companies and SecLog provide for overall security. The States are not permitted to enter into treaties with foreign Nations since it could undermine both the general welfare of the United States and the Nations security as a whole. The States were free to write their own laws and operate their States as they wished. The monetary cost to the States was also addressed in the Constitution, it states that Congress has the power to collect revenues to pay for the debts and provide for the common defense, but all revenues shall be uniform throughout the United States. That was the intention of the census, to determine population in order to determine the uniform distribution of taxation. Of course the 16th Amendment changed this. The 16th Amendment basically gave Congress the power to tax in any method they wished without regard to being fair; of course it is worded in legalese that makes it seem like the right way to do things.
Since the States sent representatives to Philadelphia in 1787 to write the Constitution and form the Government of the United States, the representatives saw fit to include the Congress. Congress consists of two separate organizations that would represent both the individual States and the People of those States independently; this ensured that the actions taken by the whole were the best for all concerned. Being the best for all concerned does not always mean that it will make everyone happy; it means that it will be the best for the majority. The 17th Amendment effectively removed the voice of the States. Initially, the individual State legislators would select Senators to represent the State in Washington; the 17th Amendment changed this to a popular election by the People. In theory this would give the People a voice in both houses of Congress. The greed for power created the career politician, combined with lack of attention by the People, silenced the voice of the People. This has left us with no voice for the People, no voice for the States and complete voice for a strong central Government. Over the years, anyone with a complaint they felt they could turn into either power or cash, have created a special interest group under the guise of helping some group that supposedly can’t help themselves. There have been special interest groups that were started with good intentions but they went the way of all political institutions, the way of power and greed. The corruption of the Constitution, combined with the silencing of the States and the People while giving voice to special interest groups, has created a monster that is bent on destroying the individual States, making them nothing more then large counties within the State of the United States.
The SecLog contract contains no provision for implementing rules that all the companies under contract must follow, rules that a single company has imposed on its employees and wishes to have imposed on all the other companies’ employees. We have done just that in the United States, it called incorporation. The Mayor of New York City has a problem with individuals owning guns, which is within his rights, it’s not right for the Federal Government to try and force that type of law on all the States. Same is true with almost every law that Congress has recently written, healthcare for example. In the SecLog contract there was no mention of additional fees to be paid by the companies to provide for services to companies that were not under contract with SecLog. Any businessperson would tell you they would not pay for pro-bono actions provided to others by a security force they had hired, that would be bad business. It amazes me that the States within the Union called the United States of America allow just such actions by the Government of the United States. This further reduces the powers that the States are supposed to have retained when they joined the Union. This is just another part of the incorporation doctrine that the Federal Government has been following. The involvement of our Senators and Representatives in the affairs of foreign countries is another contributor to incorporation and it is not in their job descriptions; not to mention the cost to the taxpayer.
Of course the contract with SecLog is just an analogy I use it to describe what is happening to the relationship between the States and the Federal Government. If we continue to allow the Federal Government to run roughshod over the States and continue to abuse the powers granted to it by the Constitution, we will no longer have a country; we will have something more akin to kingdoms of the past; this means we will be the serfs that support the Lords and Ladies of the Kingdom.
Steve Avery
10/2/2011
I was thinking about starting a business based on providing security and logistics for a group of companies that have common interests. In order to do this I knew I would have to come up with a contract that would state exactly what I would do for the companies and what I would expect out of them in return. I figured the best way to start would be with a mission statement of sorts, a statement of the overall goal of the services my company would provide stated in a way that would show the benefit to the companies.
The goal of the our company, which I will call SecLog for clarity, would be to provide external security to companies and to establish logistic services for commonly used and manufactured items between the contracted companies and those companies that operate outside our contract. Providing these services would enable the pooling of resources into one point in order to provide better services in these common areas. The companies under SecLog contract, while they may maintain their own internal security forces as they see fit they, will not have external security forces that could interfere with the SecLogs services. The contracted companies would also be restricted from forming their own contracts with companies outside the contract to prevent possible conflicts of interest within the SecLog contract. Additionally, SecLog would provide an arbitration and oversight service that would provide two additional services. First off, SecLog would provide for arbitration of issues that arise between companies within the SecLog contract. Secondly, they would have the responsibility to ensure all members within the SecLog contract, to include SecLog, operate within the confines of the contract. Any member of the contract that believes SecLog has overstepped the bounds of the contract or have not performed the services SecLog is contracted to perform may use this arbitration and oversight service to lodge a complaint and have it reviewed and resolved without fear of reprisal to the complainant. Other then the above restrictions on the companies within the contracted services there would be no other restrictions placed on the signers of this contract. SecLog will not interfere in the conducting of business within the individual companies under the SecLog contract. The fee for SecLogs services will be based on the number of employees each company employs.
After thinking about this I realized that what I was proposing was generally what the founders had done when they wrote the Constitution and formed the United States. The differences were minor; there was not a CEO that could not be fired, they provided for the election by the States of a head of the newly formed union, a President that could be fired if not performing the duties that were assigned to him. The restrictions that were placed on the States were like those that I placed on the companies that would the SecLog contract, no going outside the contracted companies and SecLog provide for overall security. The States are not permitted to enter into treaties with foreign Nations since it could undermine both the general welfare of the United States and the Nations security as a whole. The States were free to write their own laws and operate their States as they wished. The monetary cost to the States was also addressed in the Constitution, it states that Congress has the power to collect revenues to pay for the debts and provide for the common defense, but all revenues shall be uniform throughout the United States. That was the intention of the census, to determine population in order to determine the uniform distribution of taxation. Of course the 16th Amendment changed this. The 16th Amendment basically gave Congress the power to tax in any method they wished without regard to being fair; of course it is worded in legalese that makes it seem like the right way to do things.
Since the States sent representatives to Philadelphia in 1787 to write the Constitution and form the Government of the United States, the representatives saw fit to include the Congress. Congress consists of two separate organizations that would represent both the individual States and the People of those States independently; this ensured that the actions taken by the whole were the best for all concerned. Being the best for all concerned does not always mean that it will make everyone happy; it means that it will be the best for the majority. The 17th Amendment effectively removed the voice of the States. Initially, the individual State legislators would select Senators to represent the State in Washington; the 17th Amendment changed this to a popular election by the People. In theory this would give the People a voice in both houses of Congress. The greed for power created the career politician, combined with lack of attention by the People, silenced the voice of the People. This has left us with no voice for the People, no voice for the States and complete voice for a strong central Government. Over the years, anyone with a complaint they felt they could turn into either power or cash, have created a special interest group under the guise of helping some group that supposedly can’t help themselves. There have been special interest groups that were started with good intentions but they went the way of all political institutions, the way of power and greed. The corruption of the Constitution, combined with the silencing of the States and the People while giving voice to special interest groups, has created a monster that is bent on destroying the individual States, making them nothing more then large counties within the State of the United States.
The SecLog contract contains no provision for implementing rules that all the companies under contract must follow, rules that a single company has imposed on its employees and wishes to have imposed on all the other companies’ employees. We have done just that in the United States, it called incorporation. The Mayor of New York City has a problem with individuals owning guns, which is within his rights, it’s not right for the Federal Government to try and force that type of law on all the States. Same is true with almost every law that Congress has recently written, healthcare for example. In the SecLog contract there was no mention of additional fees to be paid by the companies to provide for services to companies that were not under contract with SecLog. Any businessperson would tell you they would not pay for pro-bono actions provided to others by a security force they had hired, that would be bad business. It amazes me that the States within the Union called the United States of America allow just such actions by the Government of the United States. This further reduces the powers that the States are supposed to have retained when they joined the Union. This is just another part of the incorporation doctrine that the Federal Government has been following. The involvement of our Senators and Representatives in the affairs of foreign countries is another contributor to incorporation and it is not in their job descriptions; not to mention the cost to the taxpayer.
Of course the contract with SecLog is just an analogy I use it to describe what is happening to the relationship between the States and the Federal Government. If we continue to allow the Federal Government to run roughshod over the States and continue to abuse the powers granted to it by the Constitution, we will no longer have a country; we will have something more akin to kingdoms of the past; this means we will be the serfs that support the Lords and Ladies of the Kingdom.
Steve Avery
10/2/2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Political Causes and Effects I
Non-Intervention
Listening to the GOP debates and the straw polls that normally follow has made it apparent that most people do not have any idea what the issues facing America are. Not only do they not know the issues, they have no idea of what needs to be done to get us back on track. In the political arena it seems that most people will pick one issue and choose the candidate that sounds the best to them on that issue. They don’t look at how their candidate stands on other issues or how those other issues will affect them in the long run or the country as a whole. Most people have single issue concerns that will have indirect adverse effects on the direction of the country; and in turn adverse effects on the Nation and the American people as a whole. Over the next few essays I write I’m going to take a closer look at some of the issues that keep coming up and then take them to the point of where they will affect the entire population either positively or negatively.
We are fighting a war on terror and have been for the past 10 years. This war has not only cost untold billions of dollars, contributing significantly to the National debt and deficit; it has also cost thousands of American lives, not to mention the thousands of lives to citizens of other Nations. What is has also done is brought to light that we have Military bases and personnel spread out all across the globe. The argument that the pro war, not pro Military, use to justify the war and the support of the bases on foreign soil is that it is for our National defense. Is it really? First off our Military is spread so thin that we are constantly calling up the National Guard. We aren’t calling them up to fill the gaps left in the defense here at home; we are calling them up to deploy overseas to fill gaps in the Military. We are leaving our own borders open with little to no Military available to defend them. While there are a few of the candidates that are saying it is time to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is, there is only one that is consistent on the fact that we need to get out of all the foreign countries. This attitude is incorrectly called being an isolationist. Being an isolationist means you want nothing to do with other Countries, no political ties, no trade ties, no allies, nothing. Wanting our Military out of other Countries is not being an isolationist; it is following the doctrine George Washington laid out in his farewell speech following his Presidency, a doctrine of non-intervention. Non-intervention means not getting involved with other Nations political issues while maintaining trade with all Nations. Once we become entangled in political agendas of foreign Nations we take the risk of becoming involved with wars on foreign lands.
When we take the side of one Nation over another we take the risk of alienating Nations which in the end could result in another Pearl Harbor or 9-11. In most cases any time we have become involved in foreign wars we have also become involved with Nation rebuilding and in some cases trying to spread democracy to Nations that either do not understand democracy or do not want it. Nation rebuilding not only costs the American taxpayer, it also gives our Politicians the false belief that the recipient Nation is now beholden to us. Forcing democracy on a Nation that has no desire to be a democratic Nation, much less a Republic like we are supposed to have is an invitation to starting more civil unrest that we will ultimately be entangled; this in turn will cost more money and lives. This argument for non-intervention is true with Israel as well as all other Nations. Israel, while they are the one Nation in the Middle East that shares common beliefs with America, they are their own Nation and they will survive or not on their own. Nothing we do will change that fact, it may prolong it, but it won’t change it.
All the above is also true with foreign aide. Foreign aide is American taxpayer money that usually does not get spent the way our Politicians want it to be spent, or at least not in the way they are telling us it will spent. The war in Afghanistan back in the early 80’s between Afghan rebels against Russia and the communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan is a perfect example. Congressman Charlie Wilson from TX coaxed billions of dollars to be funneled to the Afghan rebels without it being directly attributed to the rebels. America also provided training to the rebels by our CIA. We trained Osama Bin Laden on how to use our weapons and then provided him with those weapons. Once the rebels pushed back the Russian troops we packed up and left. For once we did not get involved in Nation rebuilding since we were not officially involved in the conflict and this left a bitter taste in the mouths of the Afghan people which ultimately resulted in the Taliban getting the foothold in the country and to stir up the discontent towards the American way of life. We are now in Afghanistan fighting the same people that we originally supported.
Political entanglements, Military occupation resulting in the colonization of foreign countries and the export of American dollars are not the way to the common defense of our Nation. Our Military should be protecting this Nation and its territories. Our Naval and Air Forces should be patrolling the waters and the skies surrounding our Nation while our ground forces are protecting our borders. Some will argue that our Military can not operate on our soil, Posse Comitatus Act, not true; our Military can not be used to enforce local laws. With a fraction of the money that has been and is being spent to support Military bases across the globe we could have developed the greatest defense system possible to prevent our Nation from being attacked and all the while maintaining a heightened state of training for our Military. By stopping foreign aide and political allegiances no Nation would be beholding to America and America would be beholden to none. Our goal should be to protect our trade routes, our borders and our skies while opening up trade with all.
Look at the issue of non-intervention in another way. For the most part Americans are non-interventionists, they just don’t know it. Last year there were riots and civil unrest over the Wisconsin budget. During that whole time I didn’t see a single member of the Iowa National Guard, or the Minnesota National Guard coming to the rescue of either the Wisconsin Governor or the Teachers unions. If they had, America would have had a fit over one State interfering with another States affairs. The same is true with most of the periods of unrest in this Nation, the Watts riots, the Rodney King riots or the riots at Kent State. It is also true that in none of these cases were there any troops from Germany, Iraq, Japan or any other foreign Nation on our shores in support of the rebellious masses. Again Americans would have been calling for a declaration of war against whatever Nation had dared to send troops onto American soil. What gives us the arrogance to believe that since it is us sending troops onto foreign soil it is OK?
We can not go around the world overthrowing or supporting the overthrowing of every Dictator we do like, all that will do is create a Dictator of our own since that is the power that will be needed. Dictators will come and go, the People of those Nations that are under the rule of a Dictator are the only ones that can decide whether or not they want to live under that type of rule or not, we decided we did not, we put it in writing in 1776 in a little read document called the Declaration of Independence.
Steve Avery
9/25/2011
Listening to the GOP debates and the straw polls that normally follow has made it apparent that most people do not have any idea what the issues facing America are. Not only do they not know the issues, they have no idea of what needs to be done to get us back on track. In the political arena it seems that most people will pick one issue and choose the candidate that sounds the best to them on that issue. They don’t look at how their candidate stands on other issues or how those other issues will affect them in the long run or the country as a whole. Most people have single issue concerns that will have indirect adverse effects on the direction of the country; and in turn adverse effects on the Nation and the American people as a whole. Over the next few essays I write I’m going to take a closer look at some of the issues that keep coming up and then take them to the point of where they will affect the entire population either positively or negatively.
We are fighting a war on terror and have been for the past 10 years. This war has not only cost untold billions of dollars, contributing significantly to the National debt and deficit; it has also cost thousands of American lives, not to mention the thousands of lives to citizens of other Nations. What is has also done is brought to light that we have Military bases and personnel spread out all across the globe. The argument that the pro war, not pro Military, use to justify the war and the support of the bases on foreign soil is that it is for our National defense. Is it really? First off our Military is spread so thin that we are constantly calling up the National Guard. We aren’t calling them up to fill the gaps left in the defense here at home; we are calling them up to deploy overseas to fill gaps in the Military. We are leaving our own borders open with little to no Military available to defend them. While there are a few of the candidates that are saying it is time to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is, there is only one that is consistent on the fact that we need to get out of all the foreign countries. This attitude is incorrectly called being an isolationist. Being an isolationist means you want nothing to do with other Countries, no political ties, no trade ties, no allies, nothing. Wanting our Military out of other Countries is not being an isolationist; it is following the doctrine George Washington laid out in his farewell speech following his Presidency, a doctrine of non-intervention. Non-intervention means not getting involved with other Nations political issues while maintaining trade with all Nations. Once we become entangled in political agendas of foreign Nations we take the risk of becoming involved with wars on foreign lands.
When we take the side of one Nation over another we take the risk of alienating Nations which in the end could result in another Pearl Harbor or 9-11. In most cases any time we have become involved in foreign wars we have also become involved with Nation rebuilding and in some cases trying to spread democracy to Nations that either do not understand democracy or do not want it. Nation rebuilding not only costs the American taxpayer, it also gives our Politicians the false belief that the recipient Nation is now beholden to us. Forcing democracy on a Nation that has no desire to be a democratic Nation, much less a Republic like we are supposed to have is an invitation to starting more civil unrest that we will ultimately be entangled; this in turn will cost more money and lives. This argument for non-intervention is true with Israel as well as all other Nations. Israel, while they are the one Nation in the Middle East that shares common beliefs with America, they are their own Nation and they will survive or not on their own. Nothing we do will change that fact, it may prolong it, but it won’t change it.
All the above is also true with foreign aide. Foreign aide is American taxpayer money that usually does not get spent the way our Politicians want it to be spent, or at least not in the way they are telling us it will spent. The war in Afghanistan back in the early 80’s between Afghan rebels against Russia and the communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan is a perfect example. Congressman Charlie Wilson from TX coaxed billions of dollars to be funneled to the Afghan rebels without it being directly attributed to the rebels. America also provided training to the rebels by our CIA. We trained Osama Bin Laden on how to use our weapons and then provided him with those weapons. Once the rebels pushed back the Russian troops we packed up and left. For once we did not get involved in Nation rebuilding since we were not officially involved in the conflict and this left a bitter taste in the mouths of the Afghan people which ultimately resulted in the Taliban getting the foothold in the country and to stir up the discontent towards the American way of life. We are now in Afghanistan fighting the same people that we originally supported.
Political entanglements, Military occupation resulting in the colonization of foreign countries and the export of American dollars are not the way to the common defense of our Nation. Our Military should be protecting this Nation and its territories. Our Naval and Air Forces should be patrolling the waters and the skies surrounding our Nation while our ground forces are protecting our borders. Some will argue that our Military can not operate on our soil, Posse Comitatus Act, not true; our Military can not be used to enforce local laws. With a fraction of the money that has been and is being spent to support Military bases across the globe we could have developed the greatest defense system possible to prevent our Nation from being attacked and all the while maintaining a heightened state of training for our Military. By stopping foreign aide and political allegiances no Nation would be beholding to America and America would be beholden to none. Our goal should be to protect our trade routes, our borders and our skies while opening up trade with all.
Look at the issue of non-intervention in another way. For the most part Americans are non-interventionists, they just don’t know it. Last year there were riots and civil unrest over the Wisconsin budget. During that whole time I didn’t see a single member of the Iowa National Guard, or the Minnesota National Guard coming to the rescue of either the Wisconsin Governor or the Teachers unions. If they had, America would have had a fit over one State interfering with another States affairs. The same is true with most of the periods of unrest in this Nation, the Watts riots, the Rodney King riots or the riots at Kent State. It is also true that in none of these cases were there any troops from Germany, Iraq, Japan or any other foreign Nation on our shores in support of the rebellious masses. Again Americans would have been calling for a declaration of war against whatever Nation had dared to send troops onto American soil. What gives us the arrogance to believe that since it is us sending troops onto foreign soil it is OK?
We can not go around the world overthrowing or supporting the overthrowing of every Dictator we do like, all that will do is create a Dictator of our own since that is the power that will be needed. Dictators will come and go, the People of those Nations that are under the rule of a Dictator are the only ones that can decide whether or not they want to live under that type of rule or not, we decided we did not, we put it in writing in 1776 in a little read document called the Declaration of Independence.
Steve Avery
9/25/2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
GOP Candidates
With the GOP Presidential debates starting to really roll I thought this would be a good time to point out the obvious. The questions being presented to the candidates are not the questions that need to be asked. They are also questions that are geared to create infighting between the candidates. All we have learned so far is that at least a couple of the candidates have perjured themselves at some point or another. I don’t know the facts so I can’t say whether they perjured themselves during the debates or in books they have written. In either case at least 2 of them that my failing memory can recall have backtracked on things they wrote, I have a sneaking suspicion it is the former in order to make themselves look more appealing. We have also learned that, unfortunately, some questions and answers that are supposedly geared to the Tea Party movement are still aimed at maintaining a large central Government. Before I say more I’m going to take a line from some of my favorite talk show hosts and give full disclosure, I am a supporter of Ron Paul, even though most believe him to be unelectable, he’s just that crazy old man that keeps talking about the Constitution, besides he doesn’t have a nice tan and movie star hair. In this and other debates I have noticed that the number of questions given to the candidates is not balanced. In the CNN debate for example there was the question of the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul has been talking about the Federal Reserve for years but they would not direct the question or any rebuttals to Congressman Paul. The same was true when it came to the questions about Governor Rick Perry’s mandated vaccination program for 6th grade girls, he’s a Dr. by trade, and he probably would have had some input on that subject. So with the rant out of the way let’s talk about what we should be asking the candidates and define some of the more misunderstood viewpoints of Congressman Paul.
The first question that should be asked of any Presidential candidate should be, “What powers does the President have?” This would be a very telling and very interesting question to ask. Very telling in the sense that it would tell us which of the candidates know what the Constitution states are the powers of the Executive Branch. Very interesting in that it would tell us, the voters, exactly how many of our rights and the States rights the candidate will violate to meet their own personal agenda. Article 2 of the Constitution is explicit in what the powers the President has. Today the country expects the President to heal all hurts, cure all diseases and fix all woes. Well first off the President is just a person, he is not some all powerful being that can correct all these supposed wrongs with a wave of his hand. It is because the Nation as a whole has come to believe the President can do all these things that we are in the situation we are currently in. It is not the President that owes over 14 Trillion dollars to other countries and private investors, it is not the President that is out of work, it is not the President that is trying to figure out how to make ends meet; it is the American People and we let the President put us in this position. Not only that but even if he is not re-elected we will pay him a pension for putting us in debt for the rest of his life, not to mention provide him with a personal security detail care of the American citizen for the next 10 years. Bet you didn’t know that. In 1965 Congress authorized the Secret Service to provide protection for former Presidents for lifetime after they left office, in 1997 Congress enacted legislation that provided for protection for former Presidents for only 10 years after they left office. This means that President Clinton is the last President that will receive Secret Service protection for life. Did you also know that they may elect not to receive protection from the Secret Service, it’s true, but to my knowledge none of them have. Lest I digress any further I’ll get back to the issues at hand.
The powers of the President according to Article II Section 2 of the Constitution are pretty limited. The first power is one that everyone likes to talk about and believes that it gives the President complete power to make war.
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”
In other words the Air Force and the Coast are not under the direct authority of the President, at least not according to the Constitution. Since the Constitution does not address the Air Force and the Coast Guard, plus it specifically states that we will not have standing Armies and that the budgets for such will only be granted for a period not to exceed 2 years, I’m thinking we need to amend the Constitution in accordance with Article V to either include the Air Force (which obviously was not thought of back in 1787), the Coast Guard and possibly provide for continuous funding of the Army or do away with them altogether. Personally I believe we need them, only we need to use them as they were intended. Notice also that it states he shall have this power only when they are called into actual service of the United States, care to guess who has the power to actually call them into service? If you guessed Congress you would be correct. In Article I Section 8 there are 7 separate powers granted to Congress that have to do with the Military; that is out of 18 total powers. It is true that the War Powers Act of 1973 granted the President the authority to commit our Military if we are attacked or threatened with imminent attack; that is defensive actions, not offensive.
Article II Section 2 goes on to state:
“He may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices,”
In other words he/she can request the opinions of his cabinet members in writing at any time he/she wishes. It does not mean he/she must take listen to the opinions or act on them, he/she can just request them. In that same section it goes on to state:
“and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
If I remember correctly President Clinton used this on in a most unfavorable way prior to leaving office, but it was one of the powers granted by the Constitution.
The last powers granted to the President in Article II Section 2 are:
"He shall have the power, by and with the advice and the consent of the Senate, to make Treaties; provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. The President also has the power to nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
“The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”
The last is one that I seem to remember President Obama using to his advantage in recent days; once again, it is in the Constitution.
Article II Section 3 of the Constitution states:
“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”
This tells us that the President is to, for lack of a better term, keep his thumb on the pulse of the Nation and report such pulse to Congress. Ask yourself why the President would report to Congress. It goes on to state that he can recommend measures he believes should be taken, only for their consideration. It does not state that the President will legislate from the Oval Office, or that the President will tell Congress what they must do. There is another interesting duty listed here, the President may adjourn Congress to such a time as he shall think proper. To my thinking this means that the President can not use the excuse that Congress is in recess or vacation when he tells the Nation why something is not being done.
That is the extent of the powers granted to the President in the Constitution of the United States. There is one power that is more or less an inferred power established by Article II Section 1 of the Constitution, it is the oath the President must take upon entering office. It states:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The President must agree to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States to the best of his ability. This does not mean that he may interpret, twist and abuse the Constitution as he sees fit. This is the oath that makes all the other words in the Constitution mean something; this is the oath that makes our flag mean something. Without this oath and the trust that the man we elected to the office of President will uphold this oath, we do not have a republic or a country, we have a monarchy.
I believe the People of the United States need to be reminded that Congress has the power to legislate. Congress is made up of two houses to maintain a system of checks and balances on what is best for the State and what is best for the People, hopefully the two are not that far apart. Senators are to be selected by the States legislatures to represent the interests of the State. The House of Representatives are to be elected by the citizens of their States to represent the interests of the People in their respective districts. The power to generate revenue for the United States was given to the House of Representatives since the People of the United States are the ones that provide that revenue. As for the monetary condition of the United States the only concerns the President should have are to submit a budget that will cover the operation of his Cabinet and the areas he has power over such as the Military and the paychecks for those appointments he may make. The budgets that the President offers up would come from the heads of the Departments that are under his control, again, such as the Department of Defense. I only use the DOD as an example; I have personal thoughts that the DOD is too big for its own good and ours. The other is to report to the Congress how our trade is holding up with other Nations.
What this all boils down to is the fact that the President does not have any power over our budget, that is all given to Congress, the House of Representatives to be exact. The President does not have the power to create or save jobs. The President does not have the power to determine what type of health care is best for each of us. The job of the President is to preside over the Federal Government and to deal with the heads of foreign Governments. The job of the President is to ensure that our Constitution is adhered to, even if it means going against his own personal beliefs. The question we should be asking the potential GOP candidates is what they believe the powers of the President are, that way we can find out which ones will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, which ones will be a President, not a Monarch or Dictator.
Steve Avery
9/21/2011
The first question that should be asked of any Presidential candidate should be, “What powers does the President have?” This would be a very telling and very interesting question to ask. Very telling in the sense that it would tell us which of the candidates know what the Constitution states are the powers of the Executive Branch. Very interesting in that it would tell us, the voters, exactly how many of our rights and the States rights the candidate will violate to meet their own personal agenda. Article 2 of the Constitution is explicit in what the powers the President has. Today the country expects the President to heal all hurts, cure all diseases and fix all woes. Well first off the President is just a person, he is not some all powerful being that can correct all these supposed wrongs with a wave of his hand. It is because the Nation as a whole has come to believe the President can do all these things that we are in the situation we are currently in. It is not the President that owes over 14 Trillion dollars to other countries and private investors, it is not the President that is out of work, it is not the President that is trying to figure out how to make ends meet; it is the American People and we let the President put us in this position. Not only that but even if he is not re-elected we will pay him a pension for putting us in debt for the rest of his life, not to mention provide him with a personal security detail care of the American citizen for the next 10 years. Bet you didn’t know that. In 1965 Congress authorized the Secret Service to provide protection for former Presidents for lifetime after they left office, in 1997 Congress enacted legislation that provided for protection for former Presidents for only 10 years after they left office. This means that President Clinton is the last President that will receive Secret Service protection for life. Did you also know that they may elect not to receive protection from the Secret Service, it’s true, but to my knowledge none of them have. Lest I digress any further I’ll get back to the issues at hand.
The powers of the President according to Article II Section 2 of the Constitution are pretty limited. The first power is one that everyone likes to talk about and believes that it gives the President complete power to make war.
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”
In other words the Air Force and the Coast are not under the direct authority of the President, at least not according to the Constitution. Since the Constitution does not address the Air Force and the Coast Guard, plus it specifically states that we will not have standing Armies and that the budgets for such will only be granted for a period not to exceed 2 years, I’m thinking we need to amend the Constitution in accordance with Article V to either include the Air Force (which obviously was not thought of back in 1787), the Coast Guard and possibly provide for continuous funding of the Army or do away with them altogether. Personally I believe we need them, only we need to use them as they were intended. Notice also that it states he shall have this power only when they are called into actual service of the United States, care to guess who has the power to actually call them into service? If you guessed Congress you would be correct. In Article I Section 8 there are 7 separate powers granted to Congress that have to do with the Military; that is out of 18 total powers. It is true that the War Powers Act of 1973 granted the President the authority to commit our Military if we are attacked or threatened with imminent attack; that is defensive actions, not offensive.
Article II Section 2 goes on to state:
“He may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices,”
In other words he/she can request the opinions of his cabinet members in writing at any time he/she wishes. It does not mean he/she must take listen to the opinions or act on them, he/she can just request them. In that same section it goes on to state:
“and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
If I remember correctly President Clinton used this on in a most unfavorable way prior to leaving office, but it was one of the powers granted by the Constitution.
The last powers granted to the President in Article II Section 2 are:
"He shall have the power, by and with the advice and the consent of the Senate, to make Treaties; provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. The President also has the power to nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
“The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”
The last is one that I seem to remember President Obama using to his advantage in recent days; once again, it is in the Constitution.
Article II Section 3 of the Constitution states:
“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”
This tells us that the President is to, for lack of a better term, keep his thumb on the pulse of the Nation and report such pulse to Congress. Ask yourself why the President would report to Congress. It goes on to state that he can recommend measures he believes should be taken, only for their consideration. It does not state that the President will legislate from the Oval Office, or that the President will tell Congress what they must do. There is another interesting duty listed here, the President may adjourn Congress to such a time as he shall think proper. To my thinking this means that the President can not use the excuse that Congress is in recess or vacation when he tells the Nation why something is not being done.
That is the extent of the powers granted to the President in the Constitution of the United States. There is one power that is more or less an inferred power established by Article II Section 1 of the Constitution, it is the oath the President must take upon entering office. It states:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The President must agree to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States to the best of his ability. This does not mean that he may interpret, twist and abuse the Constitution as he sees fit. This is the oath that makes all the other words in the Constitution mean something; this is the oath that makes our flag mean something. Without this oath and the trust that the man we elected to the office of President will uphold this oath, we do not have a republic or a country, we have a monarchy.
I believe the People of the United States need to be reminded that Congress has the power to legislate. Congress is made up of two houses to maintain a system of checks and balances on what is best for the State and what is best for the People, hopefully the two are not that far apart. Senators are to be selected by the States legislatures to represent the interests of the State. The House of Representatives are to be elected by the citizens of their States to represent the interests of the People in their respective districts. The power to generate revenue for the United States was given to the House of Representatives since the People of the United States are the ones that provide that revenue. As for the monetary condition of the United States the only concerns the President should have are to submit a budget that will cover the operation of his Cabinet and the areas he has power over such as the Military and the paychecks for those appointments he may make. The budgets that the President offers up would come from the heads of the Departments that are under his control, again, such as the Department of Defense. I only use the DOD as an example; I have personal thoughts that the DOD is too big for its own good and ours. The other is to report to the Congress how our trade is holding up with other Nations.
What this all boils down to is the fact that the President does not have any power over our budget, that is all given to Congress, the House of Representatives to be exact. The President does not have the power to create or save jobs. The President does not have the power to determine what type of health care is best for each of us. The job of the President is to preside over the Federal Government and to deal with the heads of foreign Governments. The job of the President is to ensure that our Constitution is adhered to, even if it means going against his own personal beliefs. The question we should be asking the potential GOP candidates is what they believe the powers of the President are, that way we can find out which ones will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, which ones will be a President, not a Monarch or Dictator.
Steve Avery
9/21/2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
Taxes Should Go Up,,,, Really
With all the talks of debt ceiling, National debt and never ending budget deficits the only answer is that taxes should go up. Now that I have your attention let me get to the point and explain what I mean.
Every dollar collected in taxes by the Federal Government and our local Governments come from the same place, us, the taxpayers. The interesting thing is that our local Governments collect taxes in the form of property taxes, income taxes, trash collection taxes and who knows how many others. These go to pay all the bills that our States, Counties and cities have accrued, bills that include social programs, road work and pet projects. Funny thing is that there is never enough to go around, the Governments are going farther in debt. The Federal Government is the same, they collect taxes from the American People using every method they can think of, and sooner or later they will tax the air we breathe. Just like local Governments there is a long list of bills to be paid. Once again there is never enough. Our local Governments and State Governments continually borrow money, they borrow from foreign countries that are also going broke, they borrow from the supposed Social Security Trust Fund and they borrow from US businesses and individuals. State Governments also receive money from the Federal Government to help with their budgets and to help fund federally mandated programs.
Our money goes up and down more then a rollercoaster except theirs no lap bar to keep it safe. Our politicians at every level believe they are under no restraints when it comes to spending. We as taxpayers have lost control of our politicians, and with them, our money. The political parties identify themselves with an Elephant and a Donkey; the American People should identify themselves with an Ostrich. The American People have stuck their heads in the sand and relied on Politicians to take care of them for so long that they know no other way to live, no other way to survive. I recently read an article where most Governors are fearful of what will happen to their States if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling, what programs will not be paid for and what checks will not be written. We, as Americans, must stop living like this. This is the equivalent of paying both the local store and the corporate office and getting a product that should cost half as much in return.
The only real solution to this, which no Politician wants to talk about, is that all taxes need to go up. Before you start rolling this up to use as starter for your grill, read on; I’m not a complete nutcase. Why do we believe that we have to write one check to our local Government and another check to the Federal Government? Why do our local Governments believe they need to collect from the citizens and also from the Federal Government? Why should our money flow up and down? All taxes should be collected at the lowest level possible and flow up from there, period. Think of the issues that could be solved. The basis for this is that the People formed the cities and counties, the counties formed the States and the States came together in a union they called the United States. Somewhere along the way the People gave up the power to the States and the States gave up the power and the purse strings to the Federal Government.
If taxes flowed up it would mean that budgets would have to flow down for approval. The Federal Government would have to submit their budget to the States for the States approval and for the States to budget in what they would have to pay, a fair apportionment for all the States to support the Federal Government. Once the States reviewed it and submitted their budgets they would send them down to the Counties and Cities for their approval. This way all the revenues would be collected at the lowest possible level, a level in which the People could better control what their politicians were doing. This would also mean that the means of revenue earning would be in the hands of local politicians. States or even Counties could decide for themselves how they earned the revenue needed. They could decide if they wanted an income tax, flat tax, fair tax, bake sale or whatever else they came up with. The methods to raise revenue could be tailored to the local economic structure.
To go along with this there are other changes that should be made, Constitutional changes. I’ve written before about repealing the 17th Amendment, put the selection of Senators back in the hands of the State Legislatures. All Senators and Representatives should be paid by their respective States, not by the Federal Government; they work for the States and the citizens of the States so that is who should be paying them. There should also be able to be recalled by the States or the Citizens of their States. There are problems with this idea; there is the problem of the debt owed by the Federal Government and how to properly apportion it among the States. Personally I believe that any debt that is tied to individual States should be passed on to that State, debts such as support of the Military, something that is beneficial to the entire Nation should be fairly apportioned to all States. Then there is the problem of the Military. As I’ve brought up before the Navy is the only branch of the Military that is authorized by the Constitution. The Navy has ships and aircraft that should be used to protect our shipping lanes, not to sit off foreign lands in a threatening posture. Our Armies and Air Force should be brought home from foreign lands and the bases sold back to their home countries. Each State should be responsible for maintaining the Army or Air Force of their choosing, be it a standing force or a militia. All States have a National Guard, both Army and Air, why do we need to have a standing National Army or Air Force? If you answer this question honestly you should come to the conclusion that it is mainly for the purpose of keeping highly trained personnel for the purpose of invading other countries and spreading democracy, not for the defense of our own Nation and its borders. Throughout the country there are numerous State Parks and monuments that are supported by Federal funds. All of these could be turned over to the States. If the States choose to continue supporting them with no charge to visitors then that is that States choice. If a State chooses to turn over the operation to a private entity then I call that good business. The biggest obstacle though is convincing the American People that they should not be controlled by their Government, instead they should control the Government; the only solution to this problem is education.
Steve Avery
7/29/2011
Every dollar collected in taxes by the Federal Government and our local Governments come from the same place, us, the taxpayers. The interesting thing is that our local Governments collect taxes in the form of property taxes, income taxes, trash collection taxes and who knows how many others. These go to pay all the bills that our States, Counties and cities have accrued, bills that include social programs, road work and pet projects. Funny thing is that there is never enough to go around, the Governments are going farther in debt. The Federal Government is the same, they collect taxes from the American People using every method they can think of, and sooner or later they will tax the air we breathe. Just like local Governments there is a long list of bills to be paid. Once again there is never enough. Our local Governments and State Governments continually borrow money, they borrow from foreign countries that are also going broke, they borrow from the supposed Social Security Trust Fund and they borrow from US businesses and individuals. State Governments also receive money from the Federal Government to help with their budgets and to help fund federally mandated programs.
Our money goes up and down more then a rollercoaster except theirs no lap bar to keep it safe. Our politicians at every level believe they are under no restraints when it comes to spending. We as taxpayers have lost control of our politicians, and with them, our money. The political parties identify themselves with an Elephant and a Donkey; the American People should identify themselves with an Ostrich. The American People have stuck their heads in the sand and relied on Politicians to take care of them for so long that they know no other way to live, no other way to survive. I recently read an article where most Governors are fearful of what will happen to their States if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling, what programs will not be paid for and what checks will not be written. We, as Americans, must stop living like this. This is the equivalent of paying both the local store and the corporate office and getting a product that should cost half as much in return.
The only real solution to this, which no Politician wants to talk about, is that all taxes need to go up. Before you start rolling this up to use as starter for your grill, read on; I’m not a complete nutcase. Why do we believe that we have to write one check to our local Government and another check to the Federal Government? Why do our local Governments believe they need to collect from the citizens and also from the Federal Government? Why should our money flow up and down? All taxes should be collected at the lowest level possible and flow up from there, period. Think of the issues that could be solved. The basis for this is that the People formed the cities and counties, the counties formed the States and the States came together in a union they called the United States. Somewhere along the way the People gave up the power to the States and the States gave up the power and the purse strings to the Federal Government.
If taxes flowed up it would mean that budgets would have to flow down for approval. The Federal Government would have to submit their budget to the States for the States approval and for the States to budget in what they would have to pay, a fair apportionment for all the States to support the Federal Government. Once the States reviewed it and submitted their budgets they would send them down to the Counties and Cities for their approval. This way all the revenues would be collected at the lowest possible level, a level in which the People could better control what their politicians were doing. This would also mean that the means of revenue earning would be in the hands of local politicians. States or even Counties could decide for themselves how they earned the revenue needed. They could decide if they wanted an income tax, flat tax, fair tax, bake sale or whatever else they came up with. The methods to raise revenue could be tailored to the local economic structure.
To go along with this there are other changes that should be made, Constitutional changes. I’ve written before about repealing the 17th Amendment, put the selection of Senators back in the hands of the State Legislatures. All Senators and Representatives should be paid by their respective States, not by the Federal Government; they work for the States and the citizens of the States so that is who should be paying them. There should also be able to be recalled by the States or the Citizens of their States. There are problems with this idea; there is the problem of the debt owed by the Federal Government and how to properly apportion it among the States. Personally I believe that any debt that is tied to individual States should be passed on to that State, debts such as support of the Military, something that is beneficial to the entire Nation should be fairly apportioned to all States. Then there is the problem of the Military. As I’ve brought up before the Navy is the only branch of the Military that is authorized by the Constitution. The Navy has ships and aircraft that should be used to protect our shipping lanes, not to sit off foreign lands in a threatening posture. Our Armies and Air Force should be brought home from foreign lands and the bases sold back to their home countries. Each State should be responsible for maintaining the Army or Air Force of their choosing, be it a standing force or a militia. All States have a National Guard, both Army and Air, why do we need to have a standing National Army or Air Force? If you answer this question honestly you should come to the conclusion that it is mainly for the purpose of keeping highly trained personnel for the purpose of invading other countries and spreading democracy, not for the defense of our own Nation and its borders. Throughout the country there are numerous State Parks and monuments that are supported by Federal funds. All of these could be turned over to the States. If the States choose to continue supporting them with no charge to visitors then that is that States choice. If a State chooses to turn over the operation to a private entity then I call that good business. The biggest obstacle though is convincing the American People that they should not be controlled by their Government, instead they should control the Government; the only solution to this problem is education.
Steve Avery
7/29/2011
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
The Amazing Human
The morning of Independence Day I had a long conversation with one of my Sons. We talked about a myriad of things concerning American Independence. Our discussion circled around to the American People. All of this got me to thinking about people in general. Everyone that is reading this, whether it’s a paper copy or a digital copy, should stop reading and look at their hands. Pretty amazing aren’t they? We can turn pages with them, we can pick things up, we can type on a computer and we can build things with them. When we can’t actually do something we figure out how to build a machine to build it for us. In short, the human race is nothing short of amazing. No other creature on the earth has achieved the things the human race has.
As humans we were given the ability to communicate with one another, even if we do not speak the same language, we have the ability to reason and we have the ability to create. Sure there are some that say other animals have the ability to communicate but that is limited to their own species, their own race. We have even figured out how to communicate with certain species of animals. In the wild you rarely find different species cohabitating, much less mating. Humans have evolved to the point where races from all over the planet are having interracial relationships and making them work. The key is evolution. Whether you believe we were created in the image of God, as I do, or that we evolved from another species, you can not deny the fact that humans have evolved farther and faster then any other species on the planet.
The evolution process never stops, it may slow to a crawl, but it never stops. We have even evolved since the times of our founders. We have made significant industrial and scientific discoveries in a period of time that is unmatched in any other period of human existence. We have also evolved in the area of human relations. Although there are many that are trying to keep us in the past, we have learned that all men are created equal. In the time of our Founders white Europeans believed they were superior to any other race. That was the way of the world at the time, not just the Americas. Through the process of evolution we have learned that there is value to every life.
Whether our founders realized what they were giving us or not we need to. Our founders gave us a plan for freedom and liberty, a plan the likes of that that has never before been seen in our world, and likely will never be seen again. The founders, whether guided by divine wisdom our some other higher source of knowledge believed man could govern themselves, they believed in that amazing spirit that accompanies the amazing body that houses it. They didn’t need to be able to look into the future, they had faith. Sure they understood that some men would waste this faith, would waste this gift; but they still had faith that there would be enough that would understand it and use it properly.
With all this in mind comes that question that has bothered me since I began writing these essays. How can the People of America waste this gift by allowing themselves to be ruled? The rulers, for lack of a better term, are no better then you or I. A man or woman born into money is no better then a man or woman born in poverty, their station in society may be better but they are no better. We have been convinced that if you have money or a degree then you are worth something. Well I have news for you, some of those that have money and a degree are worthless, and they have squandered all the gifts that have been reaped on them. Some that have nothing are worth their weight in gold; they just may never get the chance to prove it. What we do with these gifts is our own choice. Granted there are some born into this world with disabilities at birth, in some ways these are the most gifted lives among us. They typically look at life with the innocence of the young their entire lives. They do not distort the gifts that were given to us. For the rest of us it’s the choices we make that determines our lot in life. Some have an aptitude for manual labor, some for labors of the mind while others may have an aptitude for the arts or sports. Whatever aptitude you possess, there is a place for all of us. There is greatness in all of us. Our founders understood this greatness, they understood that it did not come from wealth or structured education; that is why they did not want a King or a Monarch; they wanted someone to preside over the Nation, not to rule over it.
The Founders believed that Americans could self govern. They believed in the individual. They added the 9th Amendment to the Bill of Rights so that all powers not enumerated to the Federal Government were to remain with the People. This did not mean that one group would force their ideals on the rest of the Nation; it meant that we could live free. The People were to control their State Governments; the 10th Amendment does come after the 9th Amendment after all. In the spirit of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights the Founders must have envisioned States that would consist of those that held similar beliefs, not a Nation that believed all States would be carbon copies of each other. We must restore our individuality, we must restore our freedom.
Steve Avery
7/12/2011
As humans we were given the ability to communicate with one another, even if we do not speak the same language, we have the ability to reason and we have the ability to create. Sure there are some that say other animals have the ability to communicate but that is limited to their own species, their own race. We have even figured out how to communicate with certain species of animals. In the wild you rarely find different species cohabitating, much less mating. Humans have evolved to the point where races from all over the planet are having interracial relationships and making them work. The key is evolution. Whether you believe we were created in the image of God, as I do, or that we evolved from another species, you can not deny the fact that humans have evolved farther and faster then any other species on the planet.
The evolution process never stops, it may slow to a crawl, but it never stops. We have even evolved since the times of our founders. We have made significant industrial and scientific discoveries in a period of time that is unmatched in any other period of human existence. We have also evolved in the area of human relations. Although there are many that are trying to keep us in the past, we have learned that all men are created equal. In the time of our Founders white Europeans believed they were superior to any other race. That was the way of the world at the time, not just the Americas. Through the process of evolution we have learned that there is value to every life.
Whether our founders realized what they were giving us or not we need to. Our founders gave us a plan for freedom and liberty, a plan the likes of that that has never before been seen in our world, and likely will never be seen again. The founders, whether guided by divine wisdom our some other higher source of knowledge believed man could govern themselves, they believed in that amazing spirit that accompanies the amazing body that houses it. They didn’t need to be able to look into the future, they had faith. Sure they understood that some men would waste this faith, would waste this gift; but they still had faith that there would be enough that would understand it and use it properly.
With all this in mind comes that question that has bothered me since I began writing these essays. How can the People of America waste this gift by allowing themselves to be ruled? The rulers, for lack of a better term, are no better then you or I. A man or woman born into money is no better then a man or woman born in poverty, their station in society may be better but they are no better. We have been convinced that if you have money or a degree then you are worth something. Well I have news for you, some of those that have money and a degree are worthless, and they have squandered all the gifts that have been reaped on them. Some that have nothing are worth their weight in gold; they just may never get the chance to prove it. What we do with these gifts is our own choice. Granted there are some born into this world with disabilities at birth, in some ways these are the most gifted lives among us. They typically look at life with the innocence of the young their entire lives. They do not distort the gifts that were given to us. For the rest of us it’s the choices we make that determines our lot in life. Some have an aptitude for manual labor, some for labors of the mind while others may have an aptitude for the arts or sports. Whatever aptitude you possess, there is a place for all of us. There is greatness in all of us. Our founders understood this greatness, they understood that it did not come from wealth or structured education; that is why they did not want a King or a Monarch; they wanted someone to preside over the Nation, not to rule over it.
The Founders believed that Americans could self govern. They believed in the individual. They added the 9th Amendment to the Bill of Rights so that all powers not enumerated to the Federal Government were to remain with the People. This did not mean that one group would force their ideals on the rest of the Nation; it meant that we could live free. The People were to control their State Governments; the 10th Amendment does come after the 9th Amendment after all. In the spirit of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights the Founders must have envisioned States that would consist of those that held similar beliefs, not a Nation that believed all States would be carbon copies of each other. We must restore our individuality, we must restore our freedom.
Steve Avery
7/12/2011
Saturday, July 2, 2011
R.I.P.
Ladies and Gentlemen, friends and neighbors, fellow Countrymen. It is with great sorrow that I appear before you today, for today we bid farewell to a great lady. Although I only knew her for a short period, I was able to recognize her greatness, in truth; I was able to recognize the greatness she had in her. To understand her, you must go back to her birth.
From her beginning it was obvious that she was different. In fact no one was sure of what to make of her but they knew that she could be wonderful. During her infancy the United States, as she would come to be known, was already showing signs of her independence, signs of her desire to cut the apron strings. She showed strength that no one expected or knew how to handle. When she finally did cut the apron strings she had the class associated with proper upbringing to give notice. She did this in the form of a Declaration, a Declaration that stated in no uncertain terms her intentions and the reasons for her actions. Of course this caused consternation with her Mother, Britain. This was not a peaceful breakup but both Mother and Daughter were smart enough to not permanently burn the bridges of their relationship. It has been a relationship that has been beneficial to both through the decades.
When the United States broke the ties with her Mother she knew she had to complete the break by assuming a new name; that is when she adopted the name, United States of America. Being a new Nation, albeit a late comer as Nations go, she knew she would need rules in order to survive. She accomplished this by writing a Constitution. This Constitution defined exactly how she would take care of her house and all its parts. She understood at that time that the face you put on behind closed doors was your true face. For the first century of her existence her written plan worked well, granted there were bumps in the road, pitfalls and even a few set backs; but for the most part she stuck to her self written rules and flourished.
Although the United States was the rookie on the field of Nations she hit the ground running. She had to prove herself and prove herself she did. The United States grew faster socially, economically, industrially, and militarily then any other Nation; almost to fast. Around midway into her second century she had started to believe she could impose her beliefs on others; this came back to haunt her when she was attacked from outside. True to the strength she had shown during her early years she responded with determination and resolve. Unfortunately instead of learning that she should not try to push her beliefs on others she instead believed that now she was invincible. Unfortunately the other Nations bolstered this by labeling her as one of the super powers of the world, right along with Mother Russia. What she failed to realize, being the young country of the world, was that the other Nations knew they would be able to exploit her and her new found power.
This new found prestige was like opium to an addict; she craved it and had to have it. She started to believe that her way was the only way. She started to believe that she was the protector of the downtrodden. She started to push her beliefs on everyone else whether they liked it or not. She spread herself so thin over the globe that she started to neglect herself, she let herself fall apart. She ignored the very rules she had written for her own survival believing they were holding her back. Ignoring her own rules resulted in her slow deterioration, a slow cancer she tried to ignore. Like most that believe they are on a righteous path, she could not be bothered with her own health as long as she was doing the work she had come to believe was her calling. Like most cancers the more she ignored it the more it spread; the more the fight to destroy her from within intensified. Still, believing she was invincible she ignored the signs.
Today we are all paying the price for her ignorance as we say Goodbye to what could have, what should have been, the greatest Nation this world has ever seen. Today we are lying to rest a set of rules that had the potential of ensuring true freedom, liberty and prosperity to an entire Nation. Her passing, while greatly premature, will have a far greater impact on the entire world then anyone could have foretold at her birth. The loss of her strength, determination, exceptionalism and independence will be felt across the globe. My only hope is that all of us will learn from her passing. My desire is that we learn where she strayed and pray that we have the opportunity to apply what we have learned and do her honor by once again birthing a Nation of liberty, a Nation of laws, a Nation of freedom. If we do not then we may well learn that her passing will be the passing of freedom and liberty from the Earth. Thank you and God bless you all.
Foot note: I was a little hesitant to post this, especially on Independence weekend. Then after talking to my wife about it I decided this might well be the perfect time to post it. We are on the verge of losing our freedom, liberty and our country. Maybe seeing a possible eulogy for our Nation on the anniversary of declaring our independence will fire up enough people to take a stand, to get educated about what is happening and to get involved. It is my greatest hope that this eulogy will go down as just a work of fiction, never to be a fact.
Steve Avery
7/2/2011
From her beginning it was obvious that she was different. In fact no one was sure of what to make of her but they knew that she could be wonderful. During her infancy the United States, as she would come to be known, was already showing signs of her independence, signs of her desire to cut the apron strings. She showed strength that no one expected or knew how to handle. When she finally did cut the apron strings she had the class associated with proper upbringing to give notice. She did this in the form of a Declaration, a Declaration that stated in no uncertain terms her intentions and the reasons for her actions. Of course this caused consternation with her Mother, Britain. This was not a peaceful breakup but both Mother and Daughter were smart enough to not permanently burn the bridges of their relationship. It has been a relationship that has been beneficial to both through the decades.
When the United States broke the ties with her Mother she knew she had to complete the break by assuming a new name; that is when she adopted the name, United States of America. Being a new Nation, albeit a late comer as Nations go, she knew she would need rules in order to survive. She accomplished this by writing a Constitution. This Constitution defined exactly how she would take care of her house and all its parts. She understood at that time that the face you put on behind closed doors was your true face. For the first century of her existence her written plan worked well, granted there were bumps in the road, pitfalls and even a few set backs; but for the most part she stuck to her self written rules and flourished.
Although the United States was the rookie on the field of Nations she hit the ground running. She had to prove herself and prove herself she did. The United States grew faster socially, economically, industrially, and militarily then any other Nation; almost to fast. Around midway into her second century she had started to believe she could impose her beliefs on others; this came back to haunt her when she was attacked from outside. True to the strength she had shown during her early years she responded with determination and resolve. Unfortunately instead of learning that she should not try to push her beliefs on others she instead believed that now she was invincible. Unfortunately the other Nations bolstered this by labeling her as one of the super powers of the world, right along with Mother Russia. What she failed to realize, being the young country of the world, was that the other Nations knew they would be able to exploit her and her new found power.
This new found prestige was like opium to an addict; she craved it and had to have it. She started to believe that her way was the only way. She started to believe that she was the protector of the downtrodden. She started to push her beliefs on everyone else whether they liked it or not. She spread herself so thin over the globe that she started to neglect herself, she let herself fall apart. She ignored the very rules she had written for her own survival believing they were holding her back. Ignoring her own rules resulted in her slow deterioration, a slow cancer she tried to ignore. Like most that believe they are on a righteous path, she could not be bothered with her own health as long as she was doing the work she had come to believe was her calling. Like most cancers the more she ignored it the more it spread; the more the fight to destroy her from within intensified. Still, believing she was invincible she ignored the signs.
Today we are all paying the price for her ignorance as we say Goodbye to what could have, what should have been, the greatest Nation this world has ever seen. Today we are lying to rest a set of rules that had the potential of ensuring true freedom, liberty and prosperity to an entire Nation. Her passing, while greatly premature, will have a far greater impact on the entire world then anyone could have foretold at her birth. The loss of her strength, determination, exceptionalism and independence will be felt across the globe. My only hope is that all of us will learn from her passing. My desire is that we learn where she strayed and pray that we have the opportunity to apply what we have learned and do her honor by once again birthing a Nation of liberty, a Nation of laws, a Nation of freedom. If we do not then we may well learn that her passing will be the passing of freedom and liberty from the Earth. Thank you and God bless you all.
Foot note: I was a little hesitant to post this, especially on Independence weekend. Then after talking to my wife about it I decided this might well be the perfect time to post it. We are on the verge of losing our freedom, liberty and our country. Maybe seeing a possible eulogy for our Nation on the anniversary of declaring our independence will fire up enough people to take a stand, to get educated about what is happening and to get involved. It is my greatest hope that this eulogy will go down as just a work of fiction, never to be a fact.
Steve Avery
7/2/2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
The Issues Part IV
Government Intervention
It can be assumed that Government intervention applies to the individual States or to Foreign Countries, both would be right. The Federal Government of the United States of America has elected itself to be the Big Brother, the King, the Judge and the Jury of all States and Countries big or small.
The Federal Governments mandates on the individual States is a direct and blatant violation of the 10th Amendment. Our States are supposed to be sovereign Countries, Nations unto themselves. The States should be making decisions that affect only themselves, not kowtowing to the Federal Government and begging for every dime they can suck out of the Fed and out of the other States. With the loss of the sovereignty of our States came the gain of a new breed of vulture. This new breed is the ones that believe they have the right to push their personal beliefs on the rest of the Nation. The Bill of Rights has been thrown out of the window in some cases and in others it has been incorporated into the States individual rights; this is commonly called the Incorporation Doctrine. The Bill of Rights are Amendments that clarify what power the Federal Government has over the States, they are not blanket rights that are to be applied to every State.
If you will notice the Federal Government goes after any State that tries to reassert their sovereignty. There is a small movement that believes States should secede. If a State was to secede they could still be part of the Nation, only they would be a sovereign Nation that maintained trade relations with the United States through treaties. This would be a good thing for the Federal Government in the sense that they would not have to support that State, they would not have to send money for mandated programs, and they would not have to provide defense for that State. This would never be allowed because it would mean the Federal Government would lose the revenue from that State and they would lose the control over that State. Again, it’s about money and control. The Federal Government is not acting for the common good or even common sense.
The Intervention of the United States in foreign countries does not necessarily violate the Constitution, but, at the same time it is not authorized by it either. In his farewell address George Washington advocated that we should not become entangled in the political aspirations and objectives of other nations. This has been twisted throughout the past two centuries to mean President Washington was advocating isolationalism. On the contrary President Washington was advocating anti-interventionism. Every generation since the birth of this great Nation has realized that to grow we would need trade with other Nations. This belief in trade is evident in the Navy being the only branch of the military authorized by the Constitution for continuous operation; a Navy was essential to protecting trade routes then and still is today.
The involvement in the politics of other Nations besides costing billions of our tax payer dollars, it has also cost us the lives of thousands of our young men and women. Our involvement in the past has also been the cause of many of the problems we are seeing today. In the 1980’s we were involved in a “Cold War” with the Soviets. When the Soviet Army invaded Afghanistan, a country which used to be part of Russia, the United States covertly funded arming and training the Afghanistan rebels. As a result of this we, the United States CIA, trained Osama Bin Laden. As we all know this came back to bite us, hard. Same has been true with Muammar Gaddafi; we have gone full circle with him. At one point we were bombing his palace, then we supported him, even funded him and now we are supporting the rebels against him. The Libyan rebels are another issue altogether. While fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan Libya was one of the biggest suppliers of fighters for the Taliban, now we are supporting and even funding them.
Our position with Israel is one in which there is just no good side to be on. If you want to stand with them as an ally then we are interfering again. If you take the stand of anti-intervention then you are throwing the one Country in the Middle East that shares our core religious and social values. In truth we should support them as far as standing up for them, vocally. They have the right to protect themselves as they see fit without asking us for permission or our blessing, it’s none of our business. At the same time I do lean towards not being against Gods chosen People, guess that’s my Judeo-Christian beliefs coming out.
We not only can not afford to continue pouring money and lives into foreign countries, it is just the wrong thing to do politically and morally. The Middle East has always had and always will have a civil war of some kind being fought. Nothing we do now or in the future will change that, all our interference will do is to make us a bigger enemy then we already are.
Taking a stance of anti-intervention does not mean that we do not need a military. We will always need some form of Military as I discussed in the section about the Military. It also means that we will protect our Nation with all the vigor we have always shown. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a direct result of embargos the US placed on Japan for invading Indonesia. The only good thing I can say about the attack on Pearl Harbor is that America responded with determination and resolve. We were attacked by a foreign Nation so we declared War. We fought a war to win, not to act as a police force. The attack on the World Trade Centers was again the result, indirectly, of the US’s interference. We helped to fund and train the Afghan rebels and then we left them hanging. We unfortunately created Osama Bin Laden. With the Muslim beliefs they would have more then likely attacked us, we just added fuel to their fire. In the case of the World Trade Center that was an organization, not a Nation.
We went into Afghanistan, a sovereign Nation, without any declaration of war and turned the Nation upside down; the same is true with Iraq. Originally we went into Afghanistan and into Iraq with determination, remember Shock and Awe? Once the “Shock” was over our Politicians ham stringed our Military. If we are going to send our young men and women into harms way we need to give them our full support and let them do what they are trained for. If we did there would probably be fewer instances of, for lack of a better term, bad behavior on the part of our Military.
We had no fight with Afghanistan other then the fact that that is where Osama Bin Laden called home. Our invasion in Iraq was based on the blustering of a Dictator that just enjoyed being the center of attention. Are there not bad people in the United States? Should other countries attack us because of a crime perpetrated by a citizen of the United States in another country? Should Gaddafi attack us because of the actions of our President against his country?
Summary
Currently we are involved in 3 conflicts overseas while our borders are leaking illegal immigrants like a sieve. We have a National debt of over 14 trillion dollars and our President submits a budget with a deficit of nearly 1.6 trillion dollars. Our Congress is quibbling over whether or not to raise the debt ceiling without being able to submit a counter budget that is any better then what the President submitted. Our currency is being devalued by the Federal Reserve which is causing our credit rating to drop on the international market. The threat of reduction in our credit rating adversely affects the one area we should have a foreign policy, trade. Activists are running rampant on Capitol Hill pushing their agendas on the rest of the Nation. Our State Governments are running scared instead of standing up to the Federal Government. To top off every thing else, while polls continue to show that approximately 75% of the Nation believes we are a Christian Nation with Judeo-Christian values, God is being banished to lands unknown, taking the morals of past generations with him.
It’s hard for me to believe that Americans are ready to turn over their freedom so easily. The direction of this Nation rivals that of the Nation in the George Orwell novel 1984. Are we ready to roll over and let the Government control every aspect of our lives? We are already allowing our President to act like a King? This President in particular has all but rendered Congress irrelevant. Congress is supposed to be the branch that is the voice of the People and the Sovereign States that keeps the President in line. The President is supposed to the one that ensures Congress is writing bills that are in the best interest of the Nation as a whole and ensure they are Constitutional. The Supreme Court is supposed to verify the Constitutionality of all laws. None of this is happening. We are watching a Monarchy in its infancy. This is not the first administration to act this way, just the most blatant to date. The only way to save this Nation is for the People to stand up and take it back. Not by force, but by waking up, speaking out, voting their conscience and holding their elected representatives to task.
Steve Avery
6-28-11
It can be assumed that Government intervention applies to the individual States or to Foreign Countries, both would be right. The Federal Government of the United States of America has elected itself to be the Big Brother, the King, the Judge and the Jury of all States and Countries big or small.
The Federal Governments mandates on the individual States is a direct and blatant violation of the 10th Amendment. Our States are supposed to be sovereign Countries, Nations unto themselves. The States should be making decisions that affect only themselves, not kowtowing to the Federal Government and begging for every dime they can suck out of the Fed and out of the other States. With the loss of the sovereignty of our States came the gain of a new breed of vulture. This new breed is the ones that believe they have the right to push their personal beliefs on the rest of the Nation. The Bill of Rights has been thrown out of the window in some cases and in others it has been incorporated into the States individual rights; this is commonly called the Incorporation Doctrine. The Bill of Rights are Amendments that clarify what power the Federal Government has over the States, they are not blanket rights that are to be applied to every State.
If you will notice the Federal Government goes after any State that tries to reassert their sovereignty. There is a small movement that believes States should secede. If a State was to secede they could still be part of the Nation, only they would be a sovereign Nation that maintained trade relations with the United States through treaties. This would be a good thing for the Federal Government in the sense that they would not have to support that State, they would not have to send money for mandated programs, and they would not have to provide defense for that State. This would never be allowed because it would mean the Federal Government would lose the revenue from that State and they would lose the control over that State. Again, it’s about money and control. The Federal Government is not acting for the common good or even common sense.
The Intervention of the United States in foreign countries does not necessarily violate the Constitution, but, at the same time it is not authorized by it either. In his farewell address George Washington advocated that we should not become entangled in the political aspirations and objectives of other nations. This has been twisted throughout the past two centuries to mean President Washington was advocating isolationalism. On the contrary President Washington was advocating anti-interventionism. Every generation since the birth of this great Nation has realized that to grow we would need trade with other Nations. This belief in trade is evident in the Navy being the only branch of the military authorized by the Constitution for continuous operation; a Navy was essential to protecting trade routes then and still is today.
The involvement in the politics of other Nations besides costing billions of our tax payer dollars, it has also cost us the lives of thousands of our young men and women. Our involvement in the past has also been the cause of many of the problems we are seeing today. In the 1980’s we were involved in a “Cold War” with the Soviets. When the Soviet Army invaded Afghanistan, a country which used to be part of Russia, the United States covertly funded arming and training the Afghanistan rebels. As a result of this we, the United States CIA, trained Osama Bin Laden. As we all know this came back to bite us, hard. Same has been true with Muammar Gaddafi; we have gone full circle with him. At one point we were bombing his palace, then we supported him, even funded him and now we are supporting the rebels against him. The Libyan rebels are another issue altogether. While fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan Libya was one of the biggest suppliers of fighters for the Taliban, now we are supporting and even funding them.
Our position with Israel is one in which there is just no good side to be on. If you want to stand with them as an ally then we are interfering again. If you take the stand of anti-intervention then you are throwing the one Country in the Middle East that shares our core religious and social values. In truth we should support them as far as standing up for them, vocally. They have the right to protect themselves as they see fit without asking us for permission or our blessing, it’s none of our business. At the same time I do lean towards not being against Gods chosen People, guess that’s my Judeo-Christian beliefs coming out.
We not only can not afford to continue pouring money and lives into foreign countries, it is just the wrong thing to do politically and morally. The Middle East has always had and always will have a civil war of some kind being fought. Nothing we do now or in the future will change that, all our interference will do is to make us a bigger enemy then we already are.
Taking a stance of anti-intervention does not mean that we do not need a military. We will always need some form of Military as I discussed in the section about the Military. It also means that we will protect our Nation with all the vigor we have always shown. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a direct result of embargos the US placed on Japan for invading Indonesia. The only good thing I can say about the attack on Pearl Harbor is that America responded with determination and resolve. We were attacked by a foreign Nation so we declared War. We fought a war to win, not to act as a police force. The attack on the World Trade Centers was again the result, indirectly, of the US’s interference. We helped to fund and train the Afghan rebels and then we left them hanging. We unfortunately created Osama Bin Laden. With the Muslim beliefs they would have more then likely attacked us, we just added fuel to their fire. In the case of the World Trade Center that was an organization, not a Nation.
We went into Afghanistan, a sovereign Nation, without any declaration of war and turned the Nation upside down; the same is true with Iraq. Originally we went into Afghanistan and into Iraq with determination, remember Shock and Awe? Once the “Shock” was over our Politicians ham stringed our Military. If we are going to send our young men and women into harms way we need to give them our full support and let them do what they are trained for. If we did there would probably be fewer instances of, for lack of a better term, bad behavior on the part of our Military.
We had no fight with Afghanistan other then the fact that that is where Osama Bin Laden called home. Our invasion in Iraq was based on the blustering of a Dictator that just enjoyed being the center of attention. Are there not bad people in the United States? Should other countries attack us because of a crime perpetrated by a citizen of the United States in another country? Should Gaddafi attack us because of the actions of our President against his country?
Summary
Currently we are involved in 3 conflicts overseas while our borders are leaking illegal immigrants like a sieve. We have a National debt of over 14 trillion dollars and our President submits a budget with a deficit of nearly 1.6 trillion dollars. Our Congress is quibbling over whether or not to raise the debt ceiling without being able to submit a counter budget that is any better then what the President submitted. Our currency is being devalued by the Federal Reserve which is causing our credit rating to drop on the international market. The threat of reduction in our credit rating adversely affects the one area we should have a foreign policy, trade. Activists are running rampant on Capitol Hill pushing their agendas on the rest of the Nation. Our State Governments are running scared instead of standing up to the Federal Government. To top off every thing else, while polls continue to show that approximately 75% of the Nation believes we are a Christian Nation with Judeo-Christian values, God is being banished to lands unknown, taking the morals of past generations with him.
It’s hard for me to believe that Americans are ready to turn over their freedom so easily. The direction of this Nation rivals that of the Nation in the George Orwell novel 1984. Are we ready to roll over and let the Government control every aspect of our lives? We are already allowing our President to act like a King? This President in particular has all but rendered Congress irrelevant. Congress is supposed to be the branch that is the voice of the People and the Sovereign States that keeps the President in line. The President is supposed to the one that ensures Congress is writing bills that are in the best interest of the Nation as a whole and ensure they are Constitutional. The Supreme Court is supposed to verify the Constitutionality of all laws. None of this is happening. We are watching a Monarchy in its infancy. This is not the first administration to act this way, just the most blatant to date. The only way to save this Nation is for the People to stand up and take it back. Not by force, but by waking up, speaking out, voting their conscience and holding their elected representatives to task.
Steve Avery
6-28-11
Monday, June 27, 2011
The Issues Part III
Immigration
This argument has gone back and forth for years but I’m going to touch on it again. According to thefreedictionary.com the definition of immigration is to enter and settle in a country or region to which one is not native. The definition of naturalization by thefreedictionary.com is to grant full citizenship to one of foreign birth. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress has the power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization”. There are no words about immigration. Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution on the other hand states “the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion”. If you take the Constitution at its word, without trying to interpret or twist the words around, there is no where that states that a State can not create its own laws of immigration. On the other hand a State can not make laws concerning the naturalization of an immigrant into the United States.
The Federal Government was in violation of the Constitution when they went after the State of Arizona for SB 1070, not the other way around. If Arizona had passed a bill concerning the process to become a citizen of the United States then they would have been in violation of the Constitution. In fact, in the case of Arizona, Texas and California the Federal Government is in violation of Article IV Section 4 by not preventing the wholesale illegal border crossings. This is probably also true for all coastal States and all the Northern Border States.
Immigration is not a problem in the United States, illegal immigration is. Whether we are spending tax dollars on supporting and taking care of illegal immigrants or not, they have violated the law; the United States is supposed to be a Nation of Laws. We welcome immigrants, as long as they enter legally. There are reasons for not having open borders. Many illegal immigrants are coming into America for criminal reasons, not all, but enough. At one time during the 1700’s Britain sent convicts to the Colonies to help ease their financial responsibility and put the burden on the Colonies. Is that not what is happening with our Southern border? Our Northern border is not a whole lot better, only the problem with that border is the influxes of Nationalities that do not have the best intentions for America. The point has been argued, and rightfully so, that protecting our borders is both a matter of national security and economic common sense.
The issue of protecting the borders is not nearly as difficult as our politicians want to make it. Because of our increased involvement in overseas affairs we have taxed our military to the point that we are sending our National Guard overseas to reinforce the regular military. If we were not so heavily involved the National Guard in the Border States could be used to reinforce our Customs and Border Patrol Officers, in fact they could be used to replace them. There is also an argument that could be made to have our Military protecting our borders. Our laws only state that the Military can not be used to enforce laws against United States citizens, illegal immigrants are not United States citizens.
Government Programs
Whenever the issue of the budget, deficit and debt come up the Politicians start bringing up the programs they are going to have to shut down. Oh course the first ones that are always brought up are the ones that have to do with fire protection, police protection, teachers, National Parks and Monuments and our seniors. Whenever someone does suggest cutbacks to things like say, earmarks, the response is always that it’s just a drop in the bucket, nothing worth fighting over so they just leave them in the budget. Truth is that enough drops in the bucket will eventually fill the bucket. Truth is that Politicians do not care about reducing the deficit spending or the debt; they care about saying all the right things to get re-elected. They will keep the programs going that produce the biggest kickbacks from lobbyist, Unions and Corporate hacks. Voters, regular citizens, do not have the money to entice party politicians.
Politicians do not care about whether a program is actually accomplishing what it was established to accomplish. Just look at welfare, it was established to help people get back on their feet during the depression; well the depression is over and instead of getting back on their feet we have created whole generations of welfare families. The Department of Education was created to improve the quality of the Nations Schools and to improve the education of our children. Once again, neither objective was accomplished yet we continue to pour money into the Department of Education. The Department of Energy was created to reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, need I say more?
Every Government program should have a sunset clause built into them when they are first created. This clause should be such that after a reasonable amount of time the effectiveness of the program will be evaluated by a non-partisan panel that will determine whether the program should be continued or not. Of course this is only if the Government is allowed to establish a program. Any program recommended by the Congress should be evaluated against the Constitution before they even start writing the bills for it. Off the top of my head I can not think of any Government program that would pass the test of being authorized by the Constitution. Any program or Department currently being run by the Federal Government should be transferred to the States, not mandated to them, transferred to them. If a State wants to run a program they will, if not then they won’t.
The Government is now trying to get not only into our Supermarkets, but also in our backyards and our kitchens. Through the FDA the Federal Government is trying to control everything that you are allowed to eat or drink. Humans have been surviving for a very long time eating whatever did not eat them first. It’s kind of interesting that you never hear of people getting sick from items bought at their local Farmers Markets. Once again, it’s just another issue of control, not protection.
Taxes and Job Creation
These two issues are tied together. Almost every candidate that runs for office in the Federal Government will have job creation as one plank of their platform. The Federal Government does not create jobs, the Federal Government can only put into place programs that will entice the creation of jobs. In reality we are at a point where the only thing that will entice the creation of jobs will be the repeal of many Government programs such as the Healthcare Act. If the Government was truly interested in job creation they would completely repeal the current tax code and make a simplified tax code that could be understood. Liberals like to condemn those that have been successful in the business world for being the filthy rich. It’s the filthy rich that have the capital to create jobs, that’s what they do, that’s what they are good at, and that’s why they are rich. The only jobs the Government has created have been in the public sector, these are jobs that taxes pay for which in turn means taxes need to go up to pay for them. I heard a report the other day that for every public job created by the Government two private sector jobs go away. This is due to the increase in regulations and taxes required to either support or to justify that new public sector job.
This argument has gone back and forth for years but I’m going to touch on it again. According to thefreedictionary.com the definition of immigration is to enter and settle in a country or region to which one is not native. The definition of naturalization by thefreedictionary.com is to grant full citizenship to one of foreign birth. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress has the power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization”. There are no words about immigration. Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution on the other hand states “the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion”. If you take the Constitution at its word, without trying to interpret or twist the words around, there is no where that states that a State can not create its own laws of immigration. On the other hand a State can not make laws concerning the naturalization of an immigrant into the United States.
The Federal Government was in violation of the Constitution when they went after the State of Arizona for SB 1070, not the other way around. If Arizona had passed a bill concerning the process to become a citizen of the United States then they would have been in violation of the Constitution. In fact, in the case of Arizona, Texas and California the Federal Government is in violation of Article IV Section 4 by not preventing the wholesale illegal border crossings. This is probably also true for all coastal States and all the Northern Border States.
Immigration is not a problem in the United States, illegal immigration is. Whether we are spending tax dollars on supporting and taking care of illegal immigrants or not, they have violated the law; the United States is supposed to be a Nation of Laws. We welcome immigrants, as long as they enter legally. There are reasons for not having open borders. Many illegal immigrants are coming into America for criminal reasons, not all, but enough. At one time during the 1700’s Britain sent convicts to the Colonies to help ease their financial responsibility and put the burden on the Colonies. Is that not what is happening with our Southern border? Our Northern border is not a whole lot better, only the problem with that border is the influxes of Nationalities that do not have the best intentions for America. The point has been argued, and rightfully so, that protecting our borders is both a matter of national security and economic common sense.
The issue of protecting the borders is not nearly as difficult as our politicians want to make it. Because of our increased involvement in overseas affairs we have taxed our military to the point that we are sending our National Guard overseas to reinforce the regular military. If we were not so heavily involved the National Guard in the Border States could be used to reinforce our Customs and Border Patrol Officers, in fact they could be used to replace them. There is also an argument that could be made to have our Military protecting our borders. Our laws only state that the Military can not be used to enforce laws against United States citizens, illegal immigrants are not United States citizens.
Government Programs
Whenever the issue of the budget, deficit and debt come up the Politicians start bringing up the programs they are going to have to shut down. Oh course the first ones that are always brought up are the ones that have to do with fire protection, police protection, teachers, National Parks and Monuments and our seniors. Whenever someone does suggest cutbacks to things like say, earmarks, the response is always that it’s just a drop in the bucket, nothing worth fighting over so they just leave them in the budget. Truth is that enough drops in the bucket will eventually fill the bucket. Truth is that Politicians do not care about reducing the deficit spending or the debt; they care about saying all the right things to get re-elected. They will keep the programs going that produce the biggest kickbacks from lobbyist, Unions and Corporate hacks. Voters, regular citizens, do not have the money to entice party politicians.
Politicians do not care about whether a program is actually accomplishing what it was established to accomplish. Just look at welfare, it was established to help people get back on their feet during the depression; well the depression is over and instead of getting back on their feet we have created whole generations of welfare families. The Department of Education was created to improve the quality of the Nations Schools and to improve the education of our children. Once again, neither objective was accomplished yet we continue to pour money into the Department of Education. The Department of Energy was created to reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, need I say more?
Every Government program should have a sunset clause built into them when they are first created. This clause should be such that after a reasonable amount of time the effectiveness of the program will be evaluated by a non-partisan panel that will determine whether the program should be continued or not. Of course this is only if the Government is allowed to establish a program. Any program recommended by the Congress should be evaluated against the Constitution before they even start writing the bills for it. Off the top of my head I can not think of any Government program that would pass the test of being authorized by the Constitution. Any program or Department currently being run by the Federal Government should be transferred to the States, not mandated to them, transferred to them. If a State wants to run a program they will, if not then they won’t.
The Government is now trying to get not only into our Supermarkets, but also in our backyards and our kitchens. Through the FDA the Federal Government is trying to control everything that you are allowed to eat or drink. Humans have been surviving for a very long time eating whatever did not eat them first. It’s kind of interesting that you never hear of people getting sick from items bought at their local Farmers Markets. Once again, it’s just another issue of control, not protection.
Taxes and Job Creation
These two issues are tied together. Almost every candidate that runs for office in the Federal Government will have job creation as one plank of their platform. The Federal Government does not create jobs, the Federal Government can only put into place programs that will entice the creation of jobs. In reality we are at a point where the only thing that will entice the creation of jobs will be the repeal of many Government programs such as the Healthcare Act. If the Government was truly interested in job creation they would completely repeal the current tax code and make a simplified tax code that could be understood. Liberals like to condemn those that have been successful in the business world for being the filthy rich. It’s the filthy rich that have the capital to create jobs, that’s what they do, that’s what they are good at, and that’s why they are rich. The only jobs the Government has created have been in the public sector, these are jobs that taxes pay for which in turn means taxes need to go up to pay for them. I heard a report the other day that for every public job created by the Government two private sector jobs go away. This is due to the increase in regulations and taxes required to either support or to justify that new public sector job.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
The Issues Part II
Separation of Church and State
This seems to be one of the most controversial subjects a politician can face, right along with abortion. Our Constitution specifically states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This means that the Federal Government stays out of it. Notice I said Federal. The State Governments can do as they please, as long as it’s within the confines of their own Constitutions. State Governments can even name a religion to be the State religion if their individual State Constitutions allow it. What this also means is that all of these special interest groups that want to bring suit to school boards for allowing prayer in school or a benediction during a graduation, can not use the Constitution as their argument. In fact when the proponents of this so-called separation file their law suits they are pushing their religious, or non-religious, beliefs on the rest of us, exactly what they are trying to use as their number one argument.
I have heard a recent argument that questions whether this protects Shria Law cases since they are tied to religious beliefs. Once again Congress can make no law in either direction; therefore it again falls to the States and their laws. Since most of the Shria Law cases involve honor killings this falls more into the criminal laws of a state and of our Nation. The observance and practice of the Muslim religion should be protected in this country as long as it does not violate natural law, meaning it does not cause physical harm to others.
As for history and the basis for our countries laws and Constitution, well, although there are questions about the faith of some of our founders, they all agreed on the strong Christian foundation for building our country, its Constitution, and its laws. This was in no way intended to discourage other religions, in fact our founders wanted to ensure there would be no suppression of any religious beliefs, unlike England at that time.
Abortion and Gay Marriage
I have yet to figure out why the Federal Government is involved in either abortion of gay marriage. I’ll take the easier one first, gay marriage.
There is nothing in the Constitution that talks about marriage, gay or otherwise. Marriage should simply be between the people involved and their church. Marriage is a religious matter, wait, isn’t there something in the Bill of Rights about Congress making no law etc… where religion is concerned? Once again if a State feels that gay marriage is something that will harm their State then they can make laws in accordance with their Constitutions that either prohibit or allow gay marriage. That’s the way it should work, in fact California passed a Constitutional Amendment that stated marriage was between a man and a woman and a Supreme Court Judge put a ban on that Amendment. The Supreme Court stated that the Amendment was a violation of the Constitution when I would argue that the Judge was violating one if not two Amendments of the United States Constitution by stopping the Amendment.
Some would read this and think that I am trying to defend gay marriage, nope, not at all. I’m trying to defend the Constitution and States rights. I will admit that I have no issue with the union of two people regardless of same or different sex as long as they are consenting adults, just do not push your views on me, just like religion. I will even argue that the reason the Government is involved in the issue of marriage at all is for money and control. The Government developed the marriage license to prevent the marriage between blacks and whites. The practice continued so the Government could control who they thought should or should not be allowed to marry and thus have children. Does this sound like control to you? Does this sound similar to another Government in the early 1900’s? I would also argue that lobbyist for the insurance profession has had a lot to do with defining marriage and making it a Government issue. Try listing someone of the same sex that is not a blood relative as a beneficiary on an insurance policy. Marriage is not a protection for spouses that become dependent or on children that come from the union, ever heard of palimony and child support for unwed mothers? So why is the Government involved in the issue of marriage?
Abortion is another one that is a tough and touchy subject for anyone, politician or not. The long standing argument for the pro-abortion side has been the mothers’ rights. On the pro-life side the argument has been that life begins at conception. I’m still unsure of exactly where I fall on when life begins but I am pro-life, I disclose this so everyone knows where my arguments come from. Instead of arguing about when life begins why aren’t we talking about what has happened to the morals of our young men and women?
Much to the chagrin of many, sex was for the procreation of life, not for entertainment. I’m not preaching against sex, I’m preaching against sex without accepting the consequences. Abortion is all too often being used to take care of unwanted pregnancies brought about by out of wedlock sex. Liberal thinkers argue that instead of our schools teaching abstinence they are teaching our children how to use condoms and teaching them that there is no problem having underage and out of wedlock sexual relationships. Liberal thinkers often argue that it is not even the parents right to know about the pregnancies or the abortions that may come about. Isn’t it about time that we teach responsibility and consequences instead of teaching children how to be irresponsible and how easy it is take care of the problem. Unfortunately even our President has stated that he would not want his daughters saddled with an unwanted pregnancy.
I will admit that I am a fence sitter when it comes to the question of abortion in cases or rape, incest or for the life of the mother. I tend to believe that these areas fall into the gray area that only Doctors and the patient should decide on. Everyday people are making decisions about taking life for medical reasons. We decided on who will or will not receive an organ transplant and we decide whether or not to discontinue life support for patients that have little to no chances of recovery. One amusing thing to me is that so many that believe in pro-life believe in the death penalty while so many on the pro-choice side are against the death penalty. So, it’s one way at the beginning of a life and the other at the end, doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Yes, I believe in the death penalty for most cases.
Once again the question comes back to whether the Government should have any say in abortion. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Government the power to rule on abortion. Abortion is an issue of natural law. If you believe the science that states that life begins at conception, well then the law says murder is illegal.
This seems to be one of the most controversial subjects a politician can face, right along with abortion. Our Constitution specifically states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This means that the Federal Government stays out of it. Notice I said Federal. The State Governments can do as they please, as long as it’s within the confines of their own Constitutions. State Governments can even name a religion to be the State religion if their individual State Constitutions allow it. What this also means is that all of these special interest groups that want to bring suit to school boards for allowing prayer in school or a benediction during a graduation, can not use the Constitution as their argument. In fact when the proponents of this so-called separation file their law suits they are pushing their religious, or non-religious, beliefs on the rest of us, exactly what they are trying to use as their number one argument.
I have heard a recent argument that questions whether this protects Shria Law cases since they are tied to religious beliefs. Once again Congress can make no law in either direction; therefore it again falls to the States and their laws. Since most of the Shria Law cases involve honor killings this falls more into the criminal laws of a state and of our Nation. The observance and practice of the Muslim religion should be protected in this country as long as it does not violate natural law, meaning it does not cause physical harm to others.
As for history and the basis for our countries laws and Constitution, well, although there are questions about the faith of some of our founders, they all agreed on the strong Christian foundation for building our country, its Constitution, and its laws. This was in no way intended to discourage other religions, in fact our founders wanted to ensure there would be no suppression of any religious beliefs, unlike England at that time.
Abortion and Gay Marriage
I have yet to figure out why the Federal Government is involved in either abortion of gay marriage. I’ll take the easier one first, gay marriage.
There is nothing in the Constitution that talks about marriage, gay or otherwise. Marriage should simply be between the people involved and their church. Marriage is a religious matter, wait, isn’t there something in the Bill of Rights about Congress making no law etc… where religion is concerned? Once again if a State feels that gay marriage is something that will harm their State then they can make laws in accordance with their Constitutions that either prohibit or allow gay marriage. That’s the way it should work, in fact California passed a Constitutional Amendment that stated marriage was between a man and a woman and a Supreme Court Judge put a ban on that Amendment. The Supreme Court stated that the Amendment was a violation of the Constitution when I would argue that the Judge was violating one if not two Amendments of the United States Constitution by stopping the Amendment.
Some would read this and think that I am trying to defend gay marriage, nope, not at all. I’m trying to defend the Constitution and States rights. I will admit that I have no issue with the union of two people regardless of same or different sex as long as they are consenting adults, just do not push your views on me, just like religion. I will even argue that the reason the Government is involved in the issue of marriage at all is for money and control. The Government developed the marriage license to prevent the marriage between blacks and whites. The practice continued so the Government could control who they thought should or should not be allowed to marry and thus have children. Does this sound like control to you? Does this sound similar to another Government in the early 1900’s? I would also argue that lobbyist for the insurance profession has had a lot to do with defining marriage and making it a Government issue. Try listing someone of the same sex that is not a blood relative as a beneficiary on an insurance policy. Marriage is not a protection for spouses that become dependent or on children that come from the union, ever heard of palimony and child support for unwed mothers? So why is the Government involved in the issue of marriage?
Abortion is another one that is a tough and touchy subject for anyone, politician or not. The long standing argument for the pro-abortion side has been the mothers’ rights. On the pro-life side the argument has been that life begins at conception. I’m still unsure of exactly where I fall on when life begins but I am pro-life, I disclose this so everyone knows where my arguments come from. Instead of arguing about when life begins why aren’t we talking about what has happened to the morals of our young men and women?
Much to the chagrin of many, sex was for the procreation of life, not for entertainment. I’m not preaching against sex, I’m preaching against sex without accepting the consequences. Abortion is all too often being used to take care of unwanted pregnancies brought about by out of wedlock sex. Liberal thinkers argue that instead of our schools teaching abstinence they are teaching our children how to use condoms and teaching them that there is no problem having underage and out of wedlock sexual relationships. Liberal thinkers often argue that it is not even the parents right to know about the pregnancies or the abortions that may come about. Isn’t it about time that we teach responsibility and consequences instead of teaching children how to be irresponsible and how easy it is take care of the problem. Unfortunately even our President has stated that he would not want his daughters saddled with an unwanted pregnancy.
I will admit that I am a fence sitter when it comes to the question of abortion in cases or rape, incest or for the life of the mother. I tend to believe that these areas fall into the gray area that only Doctors and the patient should decide on. Everyday people are making decisions about taking life for medical reasons. We decided on who will or will not receive an organ transplant and we decide whether or not to discontinue life support for patients that have little to no chances of recovery. One amusing thing to me is that so many that believe in pro-life believe in the death penalty while so many on the pro-choice side are against the death penalty. So, it’s one way at the beginning of a life and the other at the end, doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Yes, I believe in the death penalty for most cases.
Once again the question comes back to whether the Government should have any say in abortion. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Government the power to rule on abortion. Abortion is an issue of natural law. If you believe the science that states that life begins at conception, well then the law says murder is illegal.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
The Issues Part I
The GOP campaigning and debates are already starting for the 2012 Presidential Race. I thought this would be a good time to go over some of the issues that we will be hearing a lot about. All indications currently indicate that the Democratic Party wishes for President Obama to run for a second term, so all the campaigning we will be hearing for now will be from the GOP. At my last count there were either 6 or 7 candidates that have officially announced they will be running under the GOP ticket with 3 or 4 others in the wings. Between now and early next year all of them will be campaigning hard just to get the GOP nomination. Even within a single party there are major differences in the issues that our Nation is facing. Here are some of the issues I believe you will be hearing a lot about and my opinion on them. I know my opinion will not match many of your opinions or the opinions of the candidates, even the one that I would like to see elected. That’s what’s great about this; it’s an opinion only, so are theirs. If I can get each and everyone of you thinking about what your opinion is then I’ve accomplished part of what I wanted to accomplish. The next thing is to get everyone looking at the potential candidates and actually voting for the one that fits your qualifications, not the one that the “party” says is electable. If enough people actually vote for who they want, even if it’s a write in, then just maybe that candidate could be elected.
The Military
There seems to be the attitude today that we have to have our military in all corners of the globe in order to ensure our safety. One list I was able to find listed 87 permanent military bases overseas, 9 in South Korea, 9 in Japan, 9 in Italy, 27 in Germany and the rest spread out throughout Europe, the Middle East and other countries. I’m sure there are more bases throughout the world that are just not considered to be permanent. For example Japan is about the size of the State of California. California, one of America’s largest states, only has 7 military bases. The argument is that we need these bases in order to protect our National security. The truth is that we have the overseas bases for Nation building. With our current technology we do not need to have bases overseas to protect the United States.
When President Obama decided to interfere in Libya the bombers that dropped the bombs came from Tinker field in Oklahoma, not from one of the Air Bases in Germany, Spain, Bahrain, Italy or Turkey. When Osama Bin Laden was located Seal Team Six was deployed, they are stationed in Virginia Beach, VA, that’s located on the east coast of the United States, not overseas. With this information the question should really be why all these bases are overseas when we are not going to utilize them in times like I stated above. The plain answer is that we are in all these countries to nation build.
America did not start establishing bases outside of our borders until sometime around World War I when the Philippines were an American Territory. At that time the reasoning was to protect our homeland and territories. That I agree with. When Germany surrendered we established numerous bases throughout Germany, we occupied Germany. The German people have rebuilt their Nation and their Government, why are we still there? The same holds true with Japan.
With the economic environment in the USA does it make sense to continue to send money and personnel overseas to man these bases? Would it not make more sense to bring our troops home, back onto American soil to protect our borders and to keep our dollars at home? Another factor that needs to be considered is that with today’s technology do we really need to be in everyone else’s backyards? We can have missile defenses systems to protect us from incoming air attacks. We also have the Navy, the only constitutionally authorized continuous military service, on patrol for defense and immediate response to threats against the United States. To be clear on that, the President has the authority by the War Powers Resolution of 1973 to commit troops to defend against immediate threats to the United States, he does not have the power to commit our military to long term military involvement. Only Congress can commit our military to long term involvement with a declaration of war. In the event we need to act immediately to protect the United States and her citizens we can deploy the Marines, who are a part of the Navy.
There has not been one conflict that was so immediate that the President did not have the time to get the approval of Congress, it’s only been in the last 60 years or so that Congress would give their approval in order to provide funding but would not actually declare war, e.g.… Korea and Vietnam. What could we do with the funds that we are spending to keep the bases abroad? What National Defense system could we fund if we were not sending foreign aide to all corners of the globe? I’m not even going to go into the constitutionality of funding the Army and the Air Force or what we could do if we honored the 10th Amendment and States provided the militias as needed for National defense.
The Economy
The American Government is over 14 Trillion Dollars in debt and is once again approaching their debt ceiling. Congress has until August 2nd to either vote to raise the debt ceiling or not. If Congress votes to not raise the debt ceiling it could mean that America will go into default, we will not be able to borrow enough money to pay what we owe. If we do raise the debt ceiling then Congress will not have learned their lesson. The out of control spending that has gotten us where we are now will continue. Raising the debt ceiling or not raising will not make any difference in where the United States is headed, not unless we can get the out of control spending under control. To get the spending under control there needs to be a balanced budget, meaning that there are no more deficits and no increasing of the debt ceiling.
When the politicians try to get the American People on there side they bring up the fact that we are putting our children and grandchildren in debt, we are making them slaves to the nations debt before they are even born. What no one wants to talk about is that this was put in place back in the 1935 when the Social Security Act was signed into law. In fact the seed for this was planted before this with the passing of the Mothers Pension Programs by the Theodore Roosevelt Administration in 1911. Granted this program was run by the State Governments but it was born out of the Federal Government and later taken over by the Federal Government, this was the seed of all the entitlement programs we now have.
As long as the Federal Government continues to run entitlement programs, engages in Nation building and provides subsidies there will never be a balanced budget. Our debt will continue to grow and our children, grandchildren and so on will be slaves to this debt
Steve Avery
6-25-11
The Military
There seems to be the attitude today that we have to have our military in all corners of the globe in order to ensure our safety. One list I was able to find listed 87 permanent military bases overseas, 9 in South Korea, 9 in Japan, 9 in Italy, 27 in Germany and the rest spread out throughout Europe, the Middle East and other countries. I’m sure there are more bases throughout the world that are just not considered to be permanent. For example Japan is about the size of the State of California. California, one of America’s largest states, only has 7 military bases. The argument is that we need these bases in order to protect our National security. The truth is that we have the overseas bases for Nation building. With our current technology we do not need to have bases overseas to protect the United States.
When President Obama decided to interfere in Libya the bombers that dropped the bombs came from Tinker field in Oklahoma, not from one of the Air Bases in Germany, Spain, Bahrain, Italy or Turkey. When Osama Bin Laden was located Seal Team Six was deployed, they are stationed in Virginia Beach, VA, that’s located on the east coast of the United States, not overseas. With this information the question should really be why all these bases are overseas when we are not going to utilize them in times like I stated above. The plain answer is that we are in all these countries to nation build.
America did not start establishing bases outside of our borders until sometime around World War I when the Philippines were an American Territory. At that time the reasoning was to protect our homeland and territories. That I agree with. When Germany surrendered we established numerous bases throughout Germany, we occupied Germany. The German people have rebuilt their Nation and their Government, why are we still there? The same holds true with Japan.
With the economic environment in the USA does it make sense to continue to send money and personnel overseas to man these bases? Would it not make more sense to bring our troops home, back onto American soil to protect our borders and to keep our dollars at home? Another factor that needs to be considered is that with today’s technology do we really need to be in everyone else’s backyards? We can have missile defenses systems to protect us from incoming air attacks. We also have the Navy, the only constitutionally authorized continuous military service, on patrol for defense and immediate response to threats against the United States. To be clear on that, the President has the authority by the War Powers Resolution of 1973 to commit troops to defend against immediate threats to the United States, he does not have the power to commit our military to long term military involvement. Only Congress can commit our military to long term involvement with a declaration of war. In the event we need to act immediately to protect the United States and her citizens we can deploy the Marines, who are a part of the Navy.
There has not been one conflict that was so immediate that the President did not have the time to get the approval of Congress, it’s only been in the last 60 years or so that Congress would give their approval in order to provide funding but would not actually declare war, e.g.… Korea and Vietnam. What could we do with the funds that we are spending to keep the bases abroad? What National Defense system could we fund if we were not sending foreign aide to all corners of the globe? I’m not even going to go into the constitutionality of funding the Army and the Air Force or what we could do if we honored the 10th Amendment and States provided the militias as needed for National defense.
The Economy
The American Government is over 14 Trillion Dollars in debt and is once again approaching their debt ceiling. Congress has until August 2nd to either vote to raise the debt ceiling or not. If Congress votes to not raise the debt ceiling it could mean that America will go into default, we will not be able to borrow enough money to pay what we owe. If we do raise the debt ceiling then Congress will not have learned their lesson. The out of control spending that has gotten us where we are now will continue. Raising the debt ceiling or not raising will not make any difference in where the United States is headed, not unless we can get the out of control spending under control. To get the spending under control there needs to be a balanced budget, meaning that there are no more deficits and no increasing of the debt ceiling.
When the politicians try to get the American People on there side they bring up the fact that we are putting our children and grandchildren in debt, we are making them slaves to the nations debt before they are even born. What no one wants to talk about is that this was put in place back in the 1935 when the Social Security Act was signed into law. In fact the seed for this was planted before this with the passing of the Mothers Pension Programs by the Theodore Roosevelt Administration in 1911. Granted this program was run by the State Governments but it was born out of the Federal Government and later taken over by the Federal Government, this was the seed of all the entitlement programs we now have.
As long as the Federal Government continues to run entitlement programs, engages in Nation building and provides subsidies there will never be a balanced budget. Our debt will continue to grow and our children, grandchildren and so on will be slaves to this debt
Steve Avery
6-25-11
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)