Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Debate Frustrations

            Sitting here watching the second Presidential debate for the 2012 election, actually the November 2011 election, is really disappointing.  So far all I’ve heard, both in this debate and the first debate, is the same rhetoric coming from different angles.  At the moment they are talking about tax cuts, lowering the taxes on all incomes but keeping some deductions, making the upper income, over $250,000, pay more.  In reality they are both way off the mark, neither of their plans are going to grow the economy.  Let’s look at deductions, why do we have them?

            Has anyone ever thought about the fact that because they may decide to get married and have children and send them to public schools they are getting their children’s education paid for by those that decided not to have children and they are getting to keep more of their money simply because they decided to get married?  Let’s look at the mortgage deduction, you decide to buy a house and now all of a sudden you get to keep more of your income?  Why should anyone get to deduct a mortgage?  Is this saying that the person that does not take out a mortgage to buy a home but instead decides to work hard and save to buy a home outright should be penalized?  So the truth is the IRS and the Federal Government wants you to stay in debt, they encourage you to not pay off your home because you will lose that mortgage deduction, you will actually have less disposable income if you are fiscally responsible and do not go into debt.  That is a form of slavery.

            On the subject of the economy let’s look at the issues about education, specifically college education.  Both of the candidates are touting maintaining Pell Grants and other Government sponsored loan programs to promote college education.  How much Federal money goes to Colleges?  I honestly do not know the answer to that but I’ll bet it would be an interesting trail to follow.  Who provides the money that is paid out in these Government grant programs, it is not the Federal Government, it is the tax payer, you and me and anyone else that is out here working and paying taxes, college education or not.  It is interesting that during that conversation the President stated that he wanted to increase manufacturing jobs, last time I checked most of the jobs in manufacturing do not require a college education, at least not to perform the job.  I am not knocking a college education, what I am knocking is the total disregard for the fact that more jobs in this country do not require a college education, we can put more people back to work by the Government getting out of the way.  Most of the regulations in this country, both at Federal and State levels are not to ensure safe operations or fair trade; they are to get in the way of growth.

            Another thing that I keep hearing in the debates is the issue of the bail out the auto industry.  The President keeps hammering Governor Romney about wanting to allow the auto industry to go into bankruptcy.  The President states that the Governor plan would have lost millions of jobs, but no one wants to connect the dots and look at what the President has said about the energy industry in these United States, specifically the coal industry.  The President has stated in plain words that you can start a coal fired plant but we will bankrupt you.  How many jobs will that kill?  How many coal miners that know only one way of life, how many truck drivers that haul the coal will no longer have a job, how many companies that load the coal on barges and move them up rivers from the mines to the coal fired electrical generation plants will lose their jobs?  It’s not about maintaining jobs, it’s about who is politically connected, the auto unions, and it’s about personal agendas.

            Immigration is another favorite subject in these debates.  Neither candidate will come right out and state that the problem is not with immigration, it is with illegal immigration.  Once again most of this problem has been caused by Government intervention.  The immigration laws are so convoluted that it takes a entire team of lawyers to figure out all the paperwork that needs to be filled out and the hoops that have to be jumped through in order to enter this country legally.  The Constitution is fairly straight forward about the Federal Governments role in immigration; the Federal Government will make the laws for naturalization, not immigration.  The Federal Government is not following their own laws, look up the Federal Naturalization Laws; once you do you will wonder why we have so many bi-lingual signs in these United States.  Immigration and the protection of borders should be a State issue until the flow of illegal immigrants is deemed to be an invasion; at that point the Federal Government should step in to protect the States.  Immigration and alien worker programs are good for these United States, as long as they all enter legally.  Some of the best workers you will find in these United States are workers that are coming across our Southern borders to try and better their lives.  The problem is that our Federal Government wants to turn a blind eye to persons crossing our border illegally, just because they are good workers and they are trying to better themselves.  If I was to rob a bank to better myself I would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of what type of worker I was or how many people I was supporting.  The law is the law, breaking a law no matter the reason is wrong, why are we willing to turn a blind eye to people that are illegally trespassing into our States, not to mention the fact the our Federal Government will sue a State because they are trying to enforce the law.

            Both candidates are being very evasive about the assault weapons issue.  This is really a simple issue, it is not the weapons, it is what is done with them by a small portion of the population.  Speeding and reckless driving is against the law, we have not made it against the law to sell performance engines or parts, we have enforce the laws on speeding and reckless driving, the same should be true with assault weapons, it can be cool to shoot an assault weapon, you use it illegally you will be punished to the full extent of the law.

            The issue of shipping jobs overseas came up and all I kept hearing was that we need to either hold Chinas feet to the fire for manipulating their currency or we need to promote high wage, high education jobs.  Not all Americans are suited to go to College.  As for the China issue, it is their currency; they can do what they want with it.  If America would worry about America and stop trying to make everyone else like us or make everyone else play by our rules we would be better off.

            Whoever becomes the next President of these United States needs to work at getting out of the way.  He needs to pull that archaic document called the Constitution of the United States and read it then steer the Federal Government back to that document.  One of the first things the next President should do is to have a meeting with all the Governors of the States and reiterate that the States are sovereign and that it is up to them to have or not have all the entitlement programs, the programs that are not authorized by the Constitution.  Unfortunately that is not going to happen, we are going to be faced with the same type of Presidency that we have seen for the last several decades, more Government intervention, more regulation, more spending, more taxes and more importantly, less freedom for the citizens.  This is not a Republican or Democrat issue, this is a power issue, both sides want the power and both sides will abuse the power.
Steve Avery

Sunday, July 29, 2012


            In a recent essay about the Supreme Court rulings on Healthcare and the Arizona Immigration law I used the terms sovereignty and citizen together.  Just a few days ago I received a call from my middle son who is with a Sheriffs Department in the south.  He was telling me about an arrest he had made and the subsequent court date.  He had arrested an individual on drug charges, this individual claimed to be a sovereign citizen therefore the law did not apply to him.  It was an interesting conversation and the research I did later on Sovereign Citizenship was even more interesting, it was also frightening.  Frightening in the sense that I in no way want to have what I have written to be misunderstood to be an endorsement of Sovereign Citizenship.

            The Sovereign Citizenship website mentions that the group believes themselves to be free from all laws.  They have no identification, no drivers license, no social security number, no registrations, nothing.  When they drive they claim they are not driving, they are traveling and there are no laws that prevent them from traveling.  There is even a handbook they will send you to show you how to live a Sovereign Citizen lifestyle.  The website claims they do not advocate violence nut in recent history some of the more horrific violent acts, especially towards Law Enforcement, have been committed by Sovereign Citizens.  Terry Nichols was a Sovereign Citizen as were the Father and Son in Arkansas recently that shot down 2 Police Officers performing a simply traffic stop.  When I went on to obtain more information about these people I came across an article on the FBI website talking about Sovereign Citizens and the domestic threat they pose, not all mind you, but like other groups the extreme faction; sound like any other group that seems to be in the news a lot.  At the end of the FBI article there was a paragraph about the signs to look for in identifying Sovereign Citizens, this was the part that prompted me to write this.  The FBI mentioned a few things in particular, speaking of the Bible and quoting the Constitution.  These happen to be the same types of things that are typically quoted by Tea Party groups, Independents and Libertarians that desire a return to the Constitution.  In short Sovereign Citizenship is not the type of Citizen Sovereignty that I am talking about when I mentioned it in my essay or anytime I mention the 9th Amendment, nor is it the type that any true Patriot of the United States and the Constitution of the United States are talking about.

            Citizen Sovereignty as it applies to the Constitution means that the Citizens are the first step of chain when it comes to the Governments of both the States and the United States.  Citizens created the States and the States created the Union that we call the United States.  Citizens are the ones that are responsible for electing the officials that will represent them at both the State level and the Federal level.  If there were no citizens there would be no Government, I know that is an obvious statement but it is true, it also means that the Citizens are the pool from which the Politicians come, so if the Politicians are a problem then it is the fault of the Citizenry.  I can not and will not take credit for that thought, George Carlin, the late great comedian that told it like it was, had a skit using that thought and he was right, 100% right.  In Carlins’ skit he asks where all the good people are, are the Politicians we keep sending to Washington, and to our State Legislatures, the best we have?  I don’t believe so but until more of the People understand what the 9th Amendment was written for and stop being afraid to stand up we are going to continue to get the same type of Politicians we currently have.  The Tea Party and others that feel as I do believe in having a Government, just not an out of control Government.  The Nation is too large to not have a Government; there would be utter chaos without one.  In truth I believe our Nation is too large for the Government we currently have and we are going to see utter chaos regardless.
            The Government we have currently seems to believe themselves to be more like the British Monarchy of old, the same Monarchy our founding generation fought against, and the same Monarchy our founding generation gave up their lives and their fortunes to free us from.  When this Nation earned its freedom from the British Monarchy it was because the Nation was made up of independent minded people that believed in personal responsibility.  Today our Government does not believe any of us to be responsible enough to make our own decisions; we are not smart enough to think for ourselves.  The Sovereign Citizenship group would tell you to just ignore the Government, ignore their laws and ignore their regulations.  A Sovereign Citizen in accordance with the 9th Amendment will tell you to learn about your Government at all levels and to get involved, even if it only means getting to know your Politicians and voting with knowledge not because of popularity.  We have been led to believe only those with money can be elected to public office, maybe it’s time to disprove that myth, maybe it’s time for Citizen Statesmen again.
Steve Avery

Sunday, July 1, 2012

A Month To Be Remembered

             The month of June in the year of our Lord 2012 will be a month to be remembered when it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States, or as is the popular way of saying it these days, the SCOTUS.  SCOTUS sounds more like a grunge band then the Supreme Court of the Nation; then again at this point with the recent rulings I believe I would rather take the rulings of a grunge band then to take the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States.

            Recently the much discussed and controversial Arizona law SB 1070, finally came before the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court surprisingly upheld a majority of the law but they did vote against Arizona in 3 parts that took most of the bite out of the law.  Specifically they voted against the warrant less arrests of individuals that were in the country illegally and suspected of committing a crime and the section that made it separate State crime for illegal immigrants to work in the State.  The Supreme Court argued that these sections violated the Constitutional power of the Congress to establish a uniform of Naturalization (Article II, Section VIII, Number 4).  This is only one of the problems associated with the Supreme Courts ruling, as I have stated before there is a big difference between Naturalization and Immigration, they are two different things, just look up the definitions of each, I would think Judges that are smart enough to be appointed to the Supreme Court would already know this without having to reference Webster’s Dictionary or some High School Graduates blog.

            Immigration to put it simply is the act of moving from one place to another.  When said immigration is done with the permission of the final location we call it illegal immigration.  If someone immigrated from the public road in front of my house onto my property without permission it is called trespassing.  Trespassing and illegal immigration are one and the same, therefore someone that has entered Arizona, or any other State in the Union, illegally has committed a crime and should be arrested.  As in most cases of trespassing if the crime is simply that they were in a place they had no right to be in they should have their day in court, receive a fine and then they should be returned to the place they are allowed to be in legally, in the case of Arizona we are talking about back across the border into Mexico.

            Naturalization can only occur after legal immigration into the States of the Union has occurred.  Naturalization is the process of becoming an American citizen.  Part of this process includes a residency requirement which would lead one to believe that would mean a certain amount of time legally living in one of the States within the United States.  Currently each State, as far as I know, have their own laws of residency before you can consider yourself to be a citizen of that State, since the United States are made up of the individual States then it would lead me to believe that you would have to first meet the residency laws of the State you have chosen to live in before you can meet the requirements for Naturalization to be a citizen of these United States.

            The residency statement leads me to my final dissention with the ruling of the Supreme Court.  On Tuesday, July 17, 1787 the Continental Congress voted down what was referred to as a negative of State laws.  A negative of State laws would have put all the power of legislating laws into the hands of the Central Government.  Two Clauses in the Constitution of the United States reflect the final rulings of the day, Article II, Section VIII, Number 18 gave the power of law making to Congress only as far as the execution of the enumerated powers of Article II, Section VIII.  Article VI, Section 2 was specifically voted on that day.  This Article which is now referred to as the Supremacy Clause simply states that the Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, to include Treaties made under the Authority of the United States will be the Supreme Law of the land.  I have made this argument before, this does not mean Congress can make any law it wants and call it the Supreme law of the land, it has to be a law supported by one of the enumerated powers, not preambles or introductory statements, only in accordance with the enumerated powers of Article II, Section VIII.

            All this being said, the Supreme Court; and the Department of Justice for bringing suit against Arizona were wrong.  While I have argued that possibly illegal immigration could be an argument for the Federal Government not protecting the States from invasion, the States making their own immigration law in no way oversteps the bounds of their Sovereignty nor does it interfere with any enumerated Constitutional power.

            The Supreme Court then finally released its ruling on Health Care Affordability Act.  In short they determined that it was Constitutional and that it was not a mandate but a tax.  By calling it a tax in a sense they backpedaled on their argument that they could enforce the Act by claiming that the purchasing of Health Insurance fell under the commerce clause, once again a very misused and misinterpreted enumerated power.  By calling it a tax they are placing within the 16th Amendment, no apportionment, no census and no enumeration, in other words Congress can run amok.  The real problem with this ruling is the beast that it has unleashed.  With the belief that Case Law takes precedence over Constitutional Law the Supreme Court of the United States has just set precedence.  It will take little to no effort now for any Congress with an agenda, and the backing of limitless corporate dollars, to write a law that will require the People of the United States to purchase a particular product or service or be taxed for not doing so.

            Whether or not the right President or Congress is elected the precedence has been set.  The Supreme Court of the United States will overrule any State law they desire.  State sovereignty has been nullified in the eyes of the Central Government.  The Supreme Court has also set the precedence for the Federal Government to rule over how we may spend our hard earned income; they will decide what is best for you, so once again sovereignty has been nullified; only in this case it is personal sovereignty.  It actually pains me to write this but, welcome to the United Socialist States of America.  There are limited options open to the States and to the People.  The States can nullify Federal Laws that are not in accordance with the enumerated powers of the Constitution of the United States.  Of course this action will cause more law suits to be brought against the States by the Department of Justice.  The other is for the States to secede from the Union.  This was tried in the 1860’s, it was the correct action then and it could be the correct action now for the same reason, the Federal Government is in violation of the Contract it has between themselves and the States, it’s called the Constitution of the United States.

Steve Avery

Monday, June 11, 2012

Drones, Cameras and Regulations

            One of the hot topics on the radar currently is the use of drones within the boundaries of the United States.  The use by Law Enforcement is just the next step from helicopters and fixed wing aircraft surveillance.  Law Enforcement agencies have been using airborne surveillance for decades, checking on illegal crops, following suspects, monitoring traffic and so on.  Drones will be doing the same thing with the only difference being the pilot will be sitting at a console on the ground instead of in the pilots’ seat.  Yes there are the possibilities of the Law Enforcement misusing drones, but then again these are the people that we have elected or hired to carry guns and keep us safe, being normal people themselves there will always be the chance of the misuse of their powers, it’s a chance we have chosen to take.  Use of drones by non-Law Enforcement agencies, well that is horse of a completely different color.  Unfortunately it is the same color our politicians like to wear.

            Use of drones or any type of enhanced surveillance by the FDA, EPA or any other non-law enforcement alphabet agency is just one more step to the nanny state our politicians are trying to create.  Increased regulations, increased monitoring, and decreased personal choices are all stepping stones toward total control of our personal lives.  I for one do not want the loss of my choices, do you?  What intrigues me is that the ones that you typically find pushing for increased regulations and increased Government, the ones that benefit the most, are also the ones that will cry the loudest when their choices, rights, etc… are impeded upon.  The real question is not about the use of the drones, it’s about regulations and their enforcement, it’s about what the Government is doing and what they have the power to do.

            The use of drones has been argued to be against the Constitution, really, just where in the Constitution does it say that?  If you answered the 4th Amendment you guessed wrong.  The 4th Amendment could actually be construed to support the use of drones.  The 4th Amendment prevents the Federal Government from passing any laws that would infringe on “the right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures”.  Being secure is a far cry from privacy.  Being secure could be used to justify Law Enforcement use of drones over our homes looking for the bad guys that threaten our security.  The right to privacy scam has been used to argue against red light cameras and security cameras in public places; exactly what privacy or security is being violated if you are in a public place?  OK, you can’t run the red light without getting caught and having to pay a fine, it’s not as easy to pick a pocket or assault someone on the sidewalk if there are cameras around, but I’m still not seeing a right to privacy issue or a 4th Amendment issue.  Of course the alternative would be to hire more Police Officers to sit at every red light taking down tag numbers of those running red lights and to put on every city sidewalk to watch us, but that would just turn the argument into one about jack booted thugs and the Police State we would be living in.

            Just to be clear on my stance about drones, public cameras and our supposed right to privacy, I’m not a fan of drones and cameras on every corner.  I do think it is an invasion of privacy, even the small amount of privacy we have when we are out in public.  What I don’t agree with is that it is a Constitutional problem.  I do believe our Federal Government is grossly abusing their power with the regulations and the use of drones to enforce those regulations.  I would like to feel safe and secure in and around my own home, I would like to believe that I’m not being watched by unseen eyes every time I walk into my yard, not for illegal or nefarious reasons, it’s simply a matter of personal choice.  Personal choice is being taken away from the American People with every new regulation and law that is written, only the American People can change that, if they want to.  I am really starting to wonder if the People do not want to take personal responsibility, the People, in general, like the Government making choices for them.  I’m not sure if it’s because of a loss of individuality or if it’s because they believe the Government has the power to push personal agendas on everyone else.  Americans seem to really like pushing beliefs on others whether those others want that belief or not.

Steve Avery

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

When To Pull Up Stakes

            Pulling up stakes can mean it’s time to move or it’s time to change what you are doing.  At one time in the history of the United States if you loved being an American but were unhappy with the political environment you were in you could pull up stakes and move to another City, County or even a different State and that environment would change.  If you were unhappy with the political environment of the United States as a whole there was a time you could pull up stakes and move to a different country, at one point in history you could even find some undiscovered or uninhabited land and start a new country, not anymore.  In fact in both of the previous cases there is no where else to go.

            The political environment of the United States today is such that no matter what City, County or State you go to you are still there.  You are still in the same political environment.  In the brief life span this Nation has enjoyed we have gone from being 13 Colonies under British rule to 13 sovereign States with their own Constitutions uniting together for the purpose of defense to 50 States that have given away their sovereignty to a central Government that is usurping more power and control daily.  There is no where to go within the United States to change you political environment.  Sure there are States that are making noise about regaining their sovereignty, some have even passed a law or two to nullify some of the more freedom damaging laws the Federal Government has passed.  None so far have come right out and reclaimed their sovereignty.  The political environment in the world is just as bad or even worse in many cases.  With all the problems we do have in the United States it is still one of the freest places in the world to live, it’s just not as free as it should be or as many believe it to be.
Due to the current political environment across our Nation I now have to wonder how long it will be before people start to pull up stakes in the sense of changing what they are doing.  Exactly what you can do when you pull up stakes will depend on your financial status and whether or not you are an employer, employee or self employed.  The reason I mentioned financial status first is because this is the area that could have the largest effect on the Nation as a whole.  With our ever growing National debt and our Governments resistance to balance the budget the talk seems to always go to increasing the taxes on the “rich”.  The “rich” are those that, according to the White House, make more then $250,000 a year and do not pay their fair share of taxes.  These are the scum that find all the loopholes in the tax code that allow them to pay a lower percentage of their income than their secretaries.  These are the bloodsuckers that only earned their fortunes on the backs of those less fortunate than them.  These are the people that should feel blessed to pay more, they should feel fortunate to be able to give more of their blood money so that it may be given to those unfortunates that they stood on to earn it, those unfortunates deserve it.  Well, at least those are the things that those with socialist ideals will tell you to justify the taxing of the “rich”.  What they won’t tell you is that the loopholes they speak of are the ones that they wrote into the tax code to help themselves and their “rich” friends.  They won’t tell you exactly what percentage of what appears to be income of these “rich” individuals is put back into what ever business they started in order to keep the business going, grow the business and hire more employees.  They also will not tell you that much of the income of the “rich” comes from investments, investments that are available to anyone that is willing to either do a little research or to find someone they can trust to do the investing for them.  They also will not tell you that any tax increase on the “rich” will more then likely be passed on to either the employees or to the consumer, they are businessmen, they did not get the title of being “rich” by giving away their product or service.  They also will not tell you that without the “rich” many, if not all, of the products and services we now enjoy will not be there, they are the ones that took the chance, invested their money and applied their mind to provide these products and services for us.  Sure they benefit from their profits but we benefit from them, just look at your cell phone and try to create one from scratch.  The last thing they won’t tell you, in fact they will not even think of this themselves since they would not want to admit it, is that many of those that are benefiting from the “social” programs provided for by the Federal Government and funded by the taxpaying portion of the population contribute nothing to the welfare of the Nation.  They do not provide a service or create a product and they are not gainfully employed, if they were they would not need the “social” programs.  So exactly who is obtaining their income on the backs of others, the “rich” that have earned it or the “social” program recipients?

            With those thoughts now floating around in your head start thinking about the consequences of the “rich” deciding they have had enough.  Start thinking about the employers and employees that may not be rich but they are tired of working 40 hour plus work weeks and in many cases more then one job while others are benefiting from their labor more then they are.  Our Government is giving the impression that they will take care of you, don’t worry, quit your job and we will take care of you.  This is a great plan until the local business owner goes to his factory and finds he has no employees left, they have all gone on the Government dole.  Now the local business owner goes belly up, no problem, that’s just one more factory that was belching pollution into the air out of business, just one more of those filthy “rich” that has gone down with the ship.  Oh yea, one more deserted building that will be a blight on the landscape.  We still have all those other “rich” that have earned their money from investments to fall back on.  We will have them only as long as they let us.  How long would it take before they figured out they could be a whole lot happier if they were to turn all their investments into a yacht filled with precious metals that could not be touched by the Government?  How long would it be before they just liquidated their assets and disappeared in the fog they would leave behind?  If this was to happen there would be no assets for the Government to redistribute, there would be no “social” money being paid out, and there would be a very large portion of our population that would have no idea of how to survive without the Government telling them exactly what to do.  Of course there will always be those that refuse to quit, refuse to believe anything is happening or refuse to accept Government assistance.

            Unfortunately it seems that the Federal Government does not believe the cash cow will ever dry up.  They are giving lip service to making changes that will reduce our debt while in the same session they are passing another budget with a huge deficit or passing laws that will create more deficit spending.  Anytime you see the word deficit you can negate any thing that has been said about reducing the debt, at best the only reduction to the debt is a possible reduction to the speed at which the debt continues to grow.  There are different plans floating around Congress and being touted by groups such as the Tea Party, but for any of them to work there has to be a majority of the Nation on board with them.   Just as a thought let me give you a 4 step plan;

1- All States reclaim their sovereignty.
2- Abolish the tax code completely.
3- The States will determine what type of revenue generating system they want for their State.
4- The States will pay an equally apportioned amount to the Federal Government to provide for the common defense of the Nation and for the necessary functions of the Federal Government required to negotiate trade agreements with Foreign Nations.  The Federal Government will also retain the role of arbiter between the States.

Here are some of the benefits of this type of plan:

1- The citizens will have increased control over the taxation of their hard earned income.
2- Increased control over the States spending.
3- Prevent the taxes from someone in FL from being spent on a bike path in NC.
4- States will retain the means to control Federal spending by either approving or withholding funds.

A plan of this nature puts the Constitution back in the drivers’ seat at the Federal level and States Constitutions back in control at the State level.  It allows the States to have their own personalities, it allows the State and its citizens to determine what is best for them, and it does not allow an individual State to dictate how the entire Nation will act.  This plan could, and should, apply to all functions the Federal Government has taken that are not authorized by the Constitution.  Does this plan have problems, sure it does, one I’m not an economist or accountant which means I am probably looking at this in a very simplistic way, which may be the way it should be looked at.  Secondly, it will end a lot of Government “social” programs.  Social programs are considered sacred to many Politicians, not so much because they actually believe in them but more because they are a source of voters, power and money for them.  If they really believed in what they were touting they would be out in the streets handing out box lunches and working in soup kitchens, not flying around on Government expense accounts and going to expensive campaign dinners.  It would be a major task to get the support necessary for a plan such as this, but it’s a plan.

            Lastly we need to think about where this is headed.  For over 100 years now the Government has been usurping power and in truth turning every tax paying citizen into a tax slave.  They have done this with little resistance, they have done it gradually so that we don’t remember how it used to be; we believe it has always been this way.  We are going to allow them to continue this gradual change until we find ourselves all employed by the Government after they Nationalize all industries, just look what they are trying to do to the health industry and the oil companies now, look at what they tried to do with cap and trade and what they did to the auto industry a few years ago.  Nationalization is the only way they will be able to ensure they have the income necessary to grow the Government and grow the programs they are trying to put into place.

Steve Avery

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

The Founding and the Defining of the United States of America

Part 3

            Seems like every discussion on the Bill of Rights leaves out one very important part of the Bill of Rights, the Preamble.  In truth, many people have no idea that there even is a Preamble or what it means.  I would even venture to guess, that among those that do know there is a Preamble to the Bill of Rights, there are very few that know why there is a Bill of Rights.

            During the writing of the Constitution of the United States between May and September of 1787 many of those in attendance believed that the Constitution should start with a Declaration of Rights similar to what the Virginia Constitution contains, others believed this to be unnecessary as those rights were inherent to every man.  During the ratification process for the Constitution, Virginia and New York held fast to the belief that the Constitution had not gone far enough to restrict the powers of a central Government.  Originally twelve Amendments were proposed to Congress in 1789 to become a Bill of Rights, of the two not included in the Bill of Rights one, concerning compensation for Congress, became the 27th Amendment 201 years later, the other, concerning number of representatives, was never ratified.  The remaining proposed Amendments were to become the Bill of Rights as we know them today.  Following the writing of the Bill of Rights North Carolina and Rhode Island finally ratified the Constitution to become the 12th and 13th States respectively in 1789 and 1790, the Bill of Rights were not ratified until 1791.  Now that we have the Readers Digest version of the development of the Bill of Rights let’s get back on subject, the misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights.

            The Preamble is a very simple straight forward statement;
“The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
Note the use of the words “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”.  While the framers of the Constitution believed the rights that are stated in the Bill of Rights were inherent to every man, they knew the prevailing opinion was that without putting restrictions on the Government in writing, those rights would be infringed.  With that in mind one must read the Bill of Rights as less of a statement of rights and more as a statement of restrictions on the Federal Government.  Again notice that I used the phrase Federal Government, not just Government in general.  A State is a sovereign Nation; the United States are a group of sovereign Nations joined together for common defense and interests.  The Federal Government of the United States does not have total dominion over the States, only over those enumerated powers in the Constitution that are in the common interest of all the sovereign States.  The Bill of Rights does not apply to the States, plain and simple, the individual States have their own Constitutions that apply to only their respective States, not to their neighboring States, many, if not all, of those Constitutions include a Declaration or Rights but not all include the same rights.

            The omission of the Preamble at the beginning of any discussion about the Bill of Rights ultimately leads to the misinterpretation and misuse of the Bill of Rights; it leads to what is commonly referred to as incorporation.  Incorporation is when the Bill of Rights is used against the States; the best example of this is the 1st Amendment as it applies to religion.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It seems like this Amendment is very clear, yet when it is used the very first word of the Amendment is left out, “Congress”.  It does not say the States or any Government; it says Congress shall make no law.  There was to be no National Religion, this does not mean the individual sovereign States could not have a State religion if the citizens desired to have one, it simply meant that the Federal Government would not impose one on every State.

            The same is true with all of the first ten Amendments of the Constitution.  The Bill of Rights is not a Bill to be used by the People of the United States to further personal agendas; it is a restriction on the Federal Government only.  The 9th and 10th Amendments go hand in hand with the Preamble, unfortunately they are seldom even thought about.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The 9th Amendment is very straight forward, the People retain inherent rights, and the enumerated powers of the Constitution do not deny these rights.  The 10th Amendment sums it all up, powers not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the States or the People, the People are to keep the States in check and the States are to keep the Federal Government in check.

            The sad truth is that the American People and the States within the United States have become lazy, they have allowed the Federal Government to overstep their powers as enumerated in the Constitution and restricted by the Bill of Rights to usurp the powers that were to be retained by the States and the People.  Whether this has been done by a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the State Governments or by slick political moves to create a stronger central Government I can not say, I can say that what it leads to is a tyrannical Government that can and probably will take away those rights that are inherent to all men.
Steve Avery

Monday, March 19, 2012

The Founding and the Defining of the United States of America

Part 2

            Before you can even begin to understand the Constitution you need to understand that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are tied together.  Without the Declaration that created the United States of America there would be no need to have a Constitution of the United States.  The Constitution is the second incarnation of the States to form a Government, the first being the Articles of Confederation.  The Articles of Confederation were too loose as far as the relationship between the States and the Federal Government, hence the birth of the Constitution.  If the Declaration was to be considered the heart of the United States then the Constitution would be the soul.  While the Declaration of Independence actually formed the United States out of 13 British Colonies, the Constitution pulled those 13 Colonies into a Union of sovereign States.  Just like the Declaration the Constitution has been misinterpreted and misunderstood throughout the history of the United States.

            One of the greatest misunderstandings is just exactly what legal weight the preamble to the Constitution carries.  Take a look at this court transcript (yes I made this up to use as an analogy so just let it fly that I may not have gotten all the jargon correct):

On this day the 5th day of the May in the year of our Lord 1883 in the court of Precinct 6 in Pecos County, TX with the Judge Roy Bean residing, hereafter referred to as the court, over the case of the missing 10 gallon hat.  California Carlson, hereafter referred to as the plaintiff, claims that one Poncho, hereafter referred to as the defendant, either has information on the location of his missing 10 gallon hat or actually has possession of said hat.  Hear ye, Hear ye court is now in session.

If you were to read this you would only know that a trial in Precinct 6 of Pecos County, TX was being held to determine whether or not Poncho actually had possession of or had knowledge of the location of California Carlson’s hat, nothing about Poncho being guilty or whether or not Judge Roy Bean sentenced him to hanging, he was known as a hanging judge after all, all you have is an introduction into the trial telling you what the trial is all about.  The same is true about the Preamble to the Constitution, it only tells us what the Constitution is attempting to accomplish, and there is no legal binding to the preamble.  The most common error is trying to interpret “promote the common welfare” to mean we will take care of you from cradle to grave, not at all, it only means that the Federal Government will attempt to establish conditions that promote the common welfare of the Nation as a whole, in fact look closely at the Constitution and you will find very few references to the “People” of the United States.

            The idea that the Constitution was established to protect the citizens, the “People”, of the United States is another misconception; in fact the “People” are rarely mentioned in the Constitution.  The Constitution was written to establish a Government that pulled together the resources of the now 13 States, and subsequently the States that were formed later, in order to do those things that the States could either not do, or that were better done by a pooling of resources.  The States maintained all other powers, the States were formed by the People and the States formed the United States.  At the Virginia ratification debates for the Constitution of the United States Patrick Henry argued this very point,

“My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask who authorised them to speak the language of, We, the People, instead of We, the States? States are the characteristics, and the soul of a confederation.”

            Another area that is of constant misunderstanding or misinterpretation is Article I, Section 8, the enumerated powers of the Congress.  It is true that these are not the only powers the Constitution gives to the Congress but these are the powers that have the largest effect on the United States as a whole, the last of these enumerated powers is the one that is misused the most,

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Notice the wording; it states that Congress can only make laws that are necessary and proper as they relate to the enumerated powers, not at their discretion, or lack thereof, in any area they please.

            Article III establishes and defines the Supreme Court and its powers.  In Article III Section 2 it plainly states that the Judicial Power applies only to those cases that arise under the Constitution, the laws of the United States; which are the laws the Congress may write to carry out their enumerated powers, and the Treaties that are made by the United States; which will only be made with the advice and consent of the Senate as long as two thirds of the Senate concur.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.

            The so-called supremacy clause is another area that is interpreted to suit the need, not read and understood as it is written.  The supremacy that Article VI refers to are the laws that are made in pursuance of the Constitution, meaning the laws that Congress is authorized to write to support the enumerated powers of Article I Section 8.  It further states that all Judges in all States are bound by these; unfortunately case law seems to teach us otherwise. 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Unfortunately Judges both at the State level and the US Circuit Court level try to incorporate the Constitution into State Law while our Supreme Court Justices interpret laws and rulings as they wish to support the agenda of incorporation, incorporating the Bill of Rights to override State Constitutions, and their personal views.  In many cases that are currently heard at the Supreme Court level and at the US Circuit Court level the first question should be, how does this apply to the Constitution and the Federal Government?  The next statement should then be, case dismissed or the case is to be heard at the State Supreme Court level.  A good example of this was when California passed Prop 8 banning same sex marriage.  They did it in accordance with the Constitution of the State of California.  The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Amendment to the California State Constitution violated the United States Constitution.  This is incorporation; the United States Constitution has no binding or legal standing on an Amendment legally voted in by the citizens of California that affects only the residents of California.  This argument is in no way an argument about my stance on same sex marriage, if the Amendment had been written in favor of and the 9th Circuit Court had ruled against that I would present the same argument.

There are many more instances of either misunderstanding or misinterpreting of the Constitution that could be pointed out.  One of the roots of the problems we are now facing in America is the fact that Americans in general do not understand the Constitution, if they even know we have one.  They do not understand that our Government has a written set of rules they are to follow and they do not understand how violation of these rules can adversely affect them in the long run, well we are coming to the end of that long run.  A major issue in the political arena is the education of our children.  Our children are not, and have not been, taught the Constitution and how it applies to the Federal Government, State Governments and to the People of the United States.  There is a dark spot in our history when it was illegal to educate certain groups of people within our borders for fear that if educated they would realize they had rights, rights that were unalienable, rights granted to them by their creator that would empower them to rise up against their bondage, sound familiar?  Is that not true today also?  The citizens of today believe that the Constitution is what gives them their rights; the Constitution only prevents the Federal Government from infringing on these rights, being a person is what gives them their rights and with rights comes responsibilities.  Unfortunately the citizens of the United States of America today do not want responsibility; they want to be taken care of from cradle to grave.  The citizens of the United States of America today are ignorant of the Constitution.

Steve Avery

Monday, March 5, 2012

The Founding and the Defining of the United States of America

            Throughout the history of written language there have been documents that have been misinterpreted, misunderstood or just flat out ignored.  Sometimes the misinterpretations and misunderstandings can be attributed to changes in language over a period of time or from being incorrectly translated from either a foreign language or an older language that is no longer used.  Probably the best example of this would be the Holy Bible.  Fortunately, at least for the purpose of this writing, the Bible is more focused on an individual and their personal beliefs and salvation.  The documents I am concerning myself with are the documents that we as Americans refer to as our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence in Part 1, the Constitution of the United States in Part 2, and the Bill of Rights in Part 3.

Part 1

            In my very humble and uneducated opinion the most important of these documents is the Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration came about after the Colonists believed they had exhausted every possible means they had at their disposal to settle their differences with Britain.  In the Declaration they laid bare their argument and reasons for desiring separation from England.  The first paragraph alone explains what they were doing and why.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

They continue by stating what they believe to be the rights of man and where these rights come from.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.        

From there they go on to state their case and explain that this was not a decision that came about easily, it was not, in common terms of today, a knee jerk reaction to a few wrong doings, in fact they state many examples of the abuses that led them to this monumental decision, in fact the list of abuses was actually shortened from the original draft.  The Declaration of Independence is the document that forms the United States, it is the first document to use that name, and therefore it is the founding document for the United States.

            Much of the Declaration was taken from Virginia’s Declaration of Rights.  One of the important changes that was made by the Continental Congress was to change “life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety” from Virginia’s Declaration to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.  The Continental Congress desired that slavery in the United States should end, therefore they did not want wording in their founding document that could be later used against them, and argument that even the founding document was allowing the ownership of slaves since they were considered property.  Here is one of the misinterpretations or misunderstandings of the Declaration of Independence, our founders wanted to see the end of slavery, granted they did not outright outlaw it, they felt it would end in due time without a fight and without misgivings from the Southern plantations that depended on slavery at that time.  The Declaration also clearly states that the above stated rights are unalienable rights granted by their creator, not by the British Government or any other Government, in fact the roll of Government should only be to secure these rights with the consent of the governed, the People.  Within the list of abuses are many examples of abusing the People unalienable rights perpetrated by the Crown.

            In the final paragraph of the Declaration of Independence there are numerous key statements, a few of which I will touch on here.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Other then in the title this is the first place the Colonists use the United States of America, here is where they have declared the founding of a new Nation.  In that same line the Declaration clearly states that the united colonies are “Free and Independent States”, each and every colony is a separate and independent State, which in that time meant they were independent Countries.  In this one paragraph the Continental Congress founded a Nation and declared that Nation to be a Union of Free and Independent States.  We seem to have forgotten that fact, in truth we seem to have forgotten nearly everything about the founding of this Nation, including the abuses that were heaped on the People of the Colonies that led them to this separation, a separation that they could not guarantee would succeed, but it was worth the chance, as they so elegantly stated in the final sentence, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”  I know that within the borders of this Nation we still have lives and fortunes, but do we still have sacred honor?

Steve Avery

Monday, February 13, 2012

What it Should Be

It has become apparent that most of our citizenry, both Politician and civilian, really do not understand, or want to understand, what type of Nation the Constitution establishes.  In 1776 the Colonists in America had finally had enough of a top down Government that had the power to control the Peoples lives in every aspect without the say of the People themselves.  These individualists set themselves on a path to create the greatest Government the world would ever see, a Government that was a bottom up Government, a Government that would allow for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and most importantly, a Government that would allow a person to succeed or to fail on their own merits, a Government for a good and moral People.  America has lost sight of what that bottom up style of Government means.

Americans in general are very private people.  What that means is that what happens within the confines of their own homes is their business, in many cases not even members of their own families will know or even care about what happens within those walls.  If you don’t believe this just try to tell someone what they are to do within their own home, better yet just jump into a pit with an Alligator at one end and a hungry Bobcat at the other and see how that turns out.  Outside those walls Americans, as a whole, are very social, friendly and caring people.  To better understand this look at the example of my neighborhood.  I live in a rural part of North Carolina, an area, like so many other rural areas, is populated more by relatives, both near and distant, than it is by outsiders.  I live in an area populated by people that have many common interests or common desires.  Some People choose to live in developed areas that have covenants, they decide that the home they desire is worth the covenants, I choose otherwise.

In my case I have my home and a few acres of land.  Since my wife and I are on the road most of the time and we are not farmers, as much as we would like to be, we lease out our land to whichever local farmer we choose to lease it to for whatever reasons we have.  My closest neighbor just happens to be my parents with their home and a couple of acres.  While I may ask my fathers opinion about what to do in my yard, or he may ask my opinion about what to do about something in his home, there is no expectation or requirement that the advice be taken or acted upon, it is just advice.  On the other side of my parents home is a distant cousin and behind him is his daughter and her husband.  Next to them are a niece and her husband; in all cases what happens within the boundaries of their property is their business.  What this does not mean is that we have fences built to keep each other out of sight and out of mind, in fact there are no fences what so ever separating the properties, there are not even armed guards on patrol at our borders.  However, none of my neighbors, relative or not, whether they like what I do or not, will even think of telling me how to live my life or what I may do within the boundaries of my property as long as it is not illegal and it is not affecting them and their property.  We are, however, more then willing to help each other, whether that help is volunteered or asked for, it works both ways.

The same is true for those that chose to live in the cities, whether they are in single family homes or they are in multi-family buildings, regardless of whether they own or rent, beings how the payment of rent is a contract of temporary ownership, actually a contract of temporary responsibility for that property.  In many cases those in the cities have the same feelings as their country cousins when it comes to helping others while expecting others to respect their privacy; unfortunately this is not true in all cases.

It seems that my wife and I are constantly trying to improve our home as our budget allows.  The great thing is that we don’t have to ask our neighbors whether or not we can do the things we want to do, at the same time during many of these improvements our neighbors may profit.  When we decided to put in our driveway and later when we extended it, we went to one of our neighbors that owns a dump truck and has the contacts for the materials.  During another upgrade when I wanted to install a flag pole one of our neighbors loaned me an auger expecting nothing more from me then the return of it in the same condition as I had received it.   I didn’t have to write a bill that would require all my neighbors to chip in to pay for my driveway or my flagpole, in fact I didn’t even have to pass a bill that required all my neighbors to put in driveways or flagpoles while our neighboring community paid for it.  In fact, one of the great things about all of this is the neighboring community knows nothing about what we have done to our property or what our neighbors have done to theirs.  Another great thing is the fact that if something was to happen to one of our neighbors, a death in the family or a sickness or even if someone was to threaten their safety the rest of us would be there to help them, no questions asked, no conditions made.  It may not be the same if it were to happen to one of our neighboring communities since they are somewhat removed from us on a day to day basis.  This is not because we do not care about the neighboring communities as much as it is that what happens there does not affect us as much as what happens to our neighbors.  On the other hand our community, our neighboring community and the other communities in our County have gone together to provide a Sheriffs Office, something that as individuals and individual communities just was not a function we had the time or training to perform.

What I have described above is exactly what the framers of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers of our Nation, envisioned for our Nation.  Just as my home and my property are sovereign so are our Cities, our Counties and our States.  We banded together to form a union of sovereign States, sovereign Countries just as my community has banded together.  While the social and political attitudes within our community may vary they are not forced upon every individual in the community.  While the neighboring community may believe differently they we do when it comes to social or political issues it does not mean we will not work together when it is right for us to do so without expecting a change in either community.  That is how it should be and how it was envisioned to be for our Nation and our States.  When one of the families in our communities raise children and grow too large for the home they reside in the children will form homes of their own, little sovereign nations of their own, that too was one of the visions of our Founding Fathers.  Our Founding Fathers never expected our Nation to grow as it has and to try and maintain one central Government for such a large Nation both in population and in land mass.  Our Founding Fathers would have thought States such as California, Texas and even New York should be split into two, three or even more separate States, separate sovereign Countries.  Our Founding Fathers even believed that the States should have more power then the Federal Government, in other words the Federal Government was in many way subservient to the State Governments, the President was to be in many ways subservient to State Governors.  They even named it UNITED STATES to demonstrate the banding together of the separate states when there was a common good.  The exceptions to this were simple, the dealing with Foreign Governments for trade agreements and treaties and when it came to actual declared war when the safety of the Nation as a whole was threatened.

What just amazes me about all of this is that you would think the various political and social sects would jump all over this and make it happen.  There could be a State that was nothing other then a welfare State, one that was nothing more then a hippy commune and so on and so on.  That is actually the way it should be, in reality it is not.  I’m not sure if it started with the Progressive movement or the so called Conservative movement, which in my opinion should be the we will rule the world movement.  Where ever it started neither would be happy until all States and all Nations throughout the world were just mirror images of the way they believed.  You know that actually sounds familiar, wasn’t it Britain that believed as late as the 17th maybe even the 18th Century that they were going to make the world Britain?

Steve Avery

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Yes, I Support Ron Paul

            As more debates are put to bed and more polls are taken the more amazed I become at the American people, especially on the Republican side of the political fence.  I have to say that lightly since there are plenty that call themselves Democrats that actually have the same basic beliefs when it comes to freedom, liberty and smaller Government as their Republican counterparts.  At the same time there are some that call themselves Republicans that are just as progressive as those that proudly admit they are Progressives.  Just to be clear, a Progressive agenda is one that ends with the Federal Government controlling all aspects of your life, how and where you work, how much you get paid, what you can do with your private property, what type of insurance you can and will purchase, and what you may put into your body whether that be food, drink or other items.  To put it simply Progressives do not believe the American people are smart enough to make their own decisions, they believe we would blindly walk into traffic if they didn’t tell us otherwise.
            In 2009 the Tea Party movement began under the guise of the original Boston Tea Party protesting an overreaching, overspending and overtaxing Government.  It seemed America was waking up to the Progressive direction the country was taking under both Democratic and Republican leadership in the Whitehouse and in Congress.  The message that Ron Paul brought to the 2008 Presidential campaign was starting to take root.  Unfortunately it seems that the message wilted and died on the vine before it could be harvested.  In just 3 short years the Tea Party appears to have been strayed from their origin, no longer are they a grass roots movement that is looking for the candidate that will uphold the Constitution.  They are now looking for the elusive anybody but Obama candidate, what they are looking for is electability.  By using these criteria they are getting a Progressive Republican, which is some ways may be worse then just re-electing President Obama.  By putting a Tea Party backed Progressive in office they entire message of smaller Government will be corrupted.  Nothing will change in Washington except the letter behind the name and the Progressive movement will be able to blame the Tea Party stating that smaller Government principles do not work.  I am willing to bet that when the 2016 Presidential campaign begins there may be some policy differences but the evidence will show that the Government is still just as big if not larger and that Government spending has continued to go up.  This will only add fuel to the Progressive movement and we will end up with another Progressive in the White House, this time we may not be able to stop him or her, I’m not sure we are going to be able to stop the current White House or it’s agenda, whether President Obama is in office or not.
            While the Tea Party itself is not officially endorsing any candidate and claims they will not, it’s the media spin on prominent public Tea Party figures such as Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio coming out in support of Newt Gingrich that is lending credit to Newt Gingrich being the Tea Party candidate.  Newt Gingrich is as far away from the Boston Tea Party in principle as we all are from it in time.  Just listening to Newt on the campaign trail pandering to do whatever it is that the current State he is in wants the most is proof enough of that.  In NH he will build them a new VA Hospital, in FL he will get NASA off the ground again and colonize the Moon, in truth he will just down the same path of bankruptcy we are already on.  On the subject of colonizing, Newt will continue with the current policy of colonization of foreign countries under the guise of National Defense that we already have.  There will be no reduction in overseas defense spending, there will be no reduction of foreign aide spending, in fact, if the last few debates are any indication, we will start invading countries we just disagree with whether they are a threat or not, Cuba for instance.  Since this is not intended to be just about Newt let me state here that this is the one major area that I disagree with Rick Santorum on, he is dead set on being the protector of all foreign peoples and to spread democracy across the globe.  As for Mitt Romney it’s hard to read him, one time he will talk about reducing our overseas footprint, other times he talks as if he will continue with the current policy, not Obama’s current policy of pulling out troops though.  All of the current candidates do talk about having a strong military; it’s the how they will obtain it, where it will be deployed and what the defense budget will look like that we have to question.
            A strong military is essential to the survival of any country in today’s times.  Unfortunately that has been interpreted to mean that we have to have our military strung out across the globe which in reality has weakened our homeland defense.  There have been no wars fought on American soil since the War of Northern Aggression or for those of you that prefer, the Civil War.  Therefore the American People have been easy to convince that in order to provide protection for America it means we have to establish foreign bases and take preemptive action of Governments and groups alike that may possibly pose a threat to us at some point in the future.  The same attitude has allowed the continuing occupation of bases in Nations we have been at war with under the auspice of protecting our National Interests.  The truth is that that National Interest comes in the form of either Nation building, the spread of democracy, or in the form of political clout to have influence on foreign Governments in exchange for a military they are not paying for available for their protection, in turn we get what everyone else gets, trade agreements.  In those countries that we do not have military bases we use money in the form of foreign aide and military foreign aide to obtain our political clout.  All of this, while considered a drop in the bucket like earmarks, is supplied from taxpayer dollars, well actually it’s being supplied by loans that taxpayer dollars are paying off, that’s not true either, we are paying the interest of those loans.  In other words while our National debt has now reached 100% of GDP and we continue to pay what amounts to as bribe money to foreign countries, many of which never use the aide as it is intended, they use it to line the pockets of their politicians and leaders.
            The National Defense plan that Ron Paul has is the only one that makes sense, in fact it’s the plan that we are going to end up with one way or another, it’s also the only plan that follows what our Founding Fathers believed, especially George Washington who stated so in his last public address as he was leaving office.  Ron Paul’s plan is the plan we followed up until WWI.  Maintain fair and free trade agreements with Foreign Nations while staying out of the political entanglements of those Foreign Nations.  Maintain a strong military at home, which does go against the Founding Fathers beliefs, and invest in strong military defensive technology and intelligence.  The Founders actually did not want a standing army due to what the British standing army did to them.  In today’s environment a standing army makes sense but so does the Founders belief of renewing the budget for that army every two years.  If we continue on the financial collapse path we are currently on we are going to end up with a ragged version of Ron Paul’s plan, only when this occurs we will not have invested in the technology and intelligence necessary to ensure we are safe at home.  We will end up with worn out equipment that was used for training since our best assets were sent overseas and remain overseas and we will end up with a top heavy military since it will be cuts at the enlisted level, the fighting level, which will occur first.  Would you rather have a well thought out strong homeland defensive military or the dregs of a bankrupt Nations military?
            I focused on the National Defense plan since this seems to be the sticking point of many that consider themselves to be members of the Tea Party when it comes to supporting Ron Paul.  Yes I am a Ron Paul supporter, although by now I do not believe I needed to state that; more then that though I am an American.  I am and American that wants to save America for my Grandchildren and their Grandchildren.  America has many problems and all of them can be linked directly or indirectly to our economy.  Anyone that cares to look back at history will see that as soon as the Government started getting involved in trying to solve economic issues the economy got worse.  When the Government got involved in trying to create America all across the globe we started losing the America they were trying to spread.  When the Government got involved in trying to help Americans that were down and out get out of their hole those Americans found it was easier to stay out and the Government agreed.  America started out as a Nation of people that believed in personal responsibility and smaller Government.  We now have a Government that is following the Progressive playbook, a playbook that is ends with the Government that will control all aspects of our lives.  Just for clarification, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines Conservatism as “a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage).”  Think about the current crop of GOP candidates and tell me which one fits that definition, it’s not the one that the news media is touting as the Tea Party candidate.

Steve Avery