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.
Monday, June 27, 2011
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
Sunday, June 12, 2011
A Different Time
My wife and I being truck drivers that are ready to come off the road were talking the other day at breakfast about what we could do to simplify our life. The talk turned to getting clothes line poles made, not only because it would save some money but also because my wife likes the way sheets and clothes smell when they have been dried on the line. While talking about it we realized that when we bought our house in Virginia in the early 90’s we walked into a local home improvement store and bought clothes line poles, now we were having to think about who could make them. We have looked and can not find them in the home improvement stores, at least not in our area, and we live in a rural area. I questioned why we couldn’t find ready made poles anymore and my wife brought up the point that nowadays usually both members of the family work during the day and clothes don’t dry too good on the line at night. Besides realizing that I was questioning not being able to find ready made poles instead of making them myself, it made me realize how much our way of life has changed in this country.
When you start talking to your parents or grandparents about how things were when they were young they are quick to point out that life was not easy. If you were a farmer you were working 7 days a week, if you worked for someone else there were long hours and 6 day work weeks. The discussion normally gets around to the fact that they didn’t have what we have now, and that is true. But what do we have that makes it so much greater? What have we lost that they had? As far as history goes it’s not been that long ago where only one member of the household had to work to make ends meet. Then again the definition of making ends meet has changed, so has the definition of being fiscally conservative.
In 1950 Diners Club and America Express launched their credit card campaign on America. It started with 200 Diners Club cards being issued in 1951 that could only be used in certain restaurants; that started the revolution of plastic money. Credit has been around for centuries in one form or another, but plastic money has only been around for a little over a half a century. Credit used to be hard to obtain, you had to prove you were deserving of credit, you had to prove you could pay off the credit, and you had to do so in a relatively short period of time. Today you have to be in debt up to your eyeballs to get credit which probably means you won’t be paying off that credit any time in the near future. At one time credit was only granted if the reason for the credit was a sound one, starting a business that was actually needed or being able to buy seed to plant a crop for harvest the following fall. Today all you have to do is say I want, and you can get credit. That want may be a newer car, or a bigger boat, or a house that would quarter the entire 82nd Airborne, it doesn’t have to make sense. Keeping up with the Joneses has become more important then providing for your family.
Both sets of my Grandparents lived in modest homes. They were large enough to keep the rain off their heads. They didn’t need dens, recreation rooms, his and her sinks and tubs or even separate rooms for each child; they needed to provide a roof over their heads with enough left over to put food in their stomachs. Today we want to have a TV in every room, computers for each member of the family, cell phones for everyone old enough to walk and a new car for anyone legal to drive in the driveway. I’m guilty of at least some of this thinking also. With all of this we wonder why the United States in the financial situation it is in.
Today if a person does not earn enough to have what the next guy has we consider it to be a travesty, it used to mean we just didn’t have all the luxuries in life. In days gone by if you wanted something that was considered a luxury you would work a little extra and save until you could afford it. Today all you have to do is fill out a credit application or try and get a Government subsidy; is this really helping? Prior to the introduction of the Social Security Act in 1935 there was no permanent Government sponsored welfare program. Prior to 1935 welfare existed on a local level, usually at the county level. Local Governments ran poorhouses and orphanages. If it was determined that a person needed assistance other then that which they could obtain from family and friends they could be placed into a poorhouse. Children that had lost their parents or the parents were deemed unfit to care for them could be placed in orphanages. Neither of these places was considered to be nice places to go to, they weren’t meant to be. Benjamin Franklin was credited with the following quote “I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it”. That was the attitude of the early American poorhouses and orphanages, they did not want to make people comfortable in their poverty but they did provide a place they could be taken care of. Today whether you are willing to work for a living or not it is expected that you will have they same privileges and luxuries as the working class; there seems to be a gate to the upper class that will not be breached. People today just do not think about what they have to do to survive, somehow that is a bad thing, just to survive. What people think today is which credit card I can use to get that flat screen for the bedroom. We have turned around living within our means to mean “just surviving”.
There has been a popular bumper sticker since I was in my teens, “he who dies with the most toys wins”. Instead of being a comical bumper sticker it has become a whole generation’s mantra. What I haven’t figured out is whether that mantra was planted by the Government or the Government saw what the publics’ attitude was and saw an opportunity to push the progressive agenda. I personally believe it was the former. America has always had those that wanted a strong central Government with more control then what the Constitution allows. Prior to the 1900’s the Government went through ups and downs but the people still seemed to keep the Government reigned in enough to be manageable. It is believed that Grover Cleveland was one of the last true conservative Presidents to be in office before the progressive movement really took hold. Starting sometime around the Woodrow Wilson administration the progressive movement got a toehold. There were still a couple like William Harding and Calvin Coolidge that stalled the progressive move but it was not enough to stop it.
In 1909 President Theodore Roosevelt started that ball rolling with a White Conference on how best to deal with poor mothers and their children, the result of this conference was the beginning of the mothers’ pension programs. The first one started in Illinois in 1911; by 1933 all but 2 states had mothers’ pension programs. These programs were run by the States but they were the brainchild of the Federal Government. With the explosion of unemployed at the beginning of the Great Depression State programs and private charities were unable to keep up with the demand for help. In his State of the Union address before Congress in January of 1935 President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared "the time has come for action by the national government" to provide "security against the major hazards and vicissitudes [uncertainties] of life." By August of 1935 the Social Security Act was born.
There are different schools of thought as to whether the Government actually caused the Depression to be worse then it should have been or not. One thing that should be clear is that any program the Government put into place to ease the suffering during the Depression should have had a sunset; it should have gone away once the economy recovered to a point that the assistance was no longer required. But in the true fashion of the Progressive the Government used the Depression as the crisis necessary to advance the Progressive movement. With the birth of Social Security we can also mark the planting of the seeds for all other Government assistance programs and the death of fiscal responsibility in America.
At the beginning of this I asked what have we lost that they had? It is my personal belief that there is much that we have lost. We have lost our sense of fiscal responsibility and we have lost our individuality. George Carlin once did a piece in one of his shows about what is wrong with America. He sums it up with the fact that it’s not our politicians that are the problem, it’s us. The politicians are selected from us by us, they are representatives of the American people therefore we are the ones that have allowed our country to get to the state it is in now and we are the only ones that have any hope of turning it around. If we expect our politicians to showed fiscal responsibility then we need to show it ourselves. We need to restore the definition of making ends meet to what it used to be. We need to learn to live within our means. There is nothing wrong with having luxuries, as long as you can truly afford them. We need to learn to do without at times and learn how to do for ourselves more.
Steve Avery
6/12/11
When you start talking to your parents or grandparents about how things were when they were young they are quick to point out that life was not easy. If you were a farmer you were working 7 days a week, if you worked for someone else there were long hours and 6 day work weeks. The discussion normally gets around to the fact that they didn’t have what we have now, and that is true. But what do we have that makes it so much greater? What have we lost that they had? As far as history goes it’s not been that long ago where only one member of the household had to work to make ends meet. Then again the definition of making ends meet has changed, so has the definition of being fiscally conservative.
In 1950 Diners Club and America Express launched their credit card campaign on America. It started with 200 Diners Club cards being issued in 1951 that could only be used in certain restaurants; that started the revolution of plastic money. Credit has been around for centuries in one form or another, but plastic money has only been around for a little over a half a century. Credit used to be hard to obtain, you had to prove you were deserving of credit, you had to prove you could pay off the credit, and you had to do so in a relatively short period of time. Today you have to be in debt up to your eyeballs to get credit which probably means you won’t be paying off that credit any time in the near future. At one time credit was only granted if the reason for the credit was a sound one, starting a business that was actually needed or being able to buy seed to plant a crop for harvest the following fall. Today all you have to do is say I want, and you can get credit. That want may be a newer car, or a bigger boat, or a house that would quarter the entire 82nd Airborne, it doesn’t have to make sense. Keeping up with the Joneses has become more important then providing for your family.
Both sets of my Grandparents lived in modest homes. They were large enough to keep the rain off their heads. They didn’t need dens, recreation rooms, his and her sinks and tubs or even separate rooms for each child; they needed to provide a roof over their heads with enough left over to put food in their stomachs. Today we want to have a TV in every room, computers for each member of the family, cell phones for everyone old enough to walk and a new car for anyone legal to drive in the driveway. I’m guilty of at least some of this thinking also. With all of this we wonder why the United States in the financial situation it is in.
Today if a person does not earn enough to have what the next guy has we consider it to be a travesty, it used to mean we just didn’t have all the luxuries in life. In days gone by if you wanted something that was considered a luxury you would work a little extra and save until you could afford it. Today all you have to do is fill out a credit application or try and get a Government subsidy; is this really helping? Prior to the introduction of the Social Security Act in 1935 there was no permanent Government sponsored welfare program. Prior to 1935 welfare existed on a local level, usually at the county level. Local Governments ran poorhouses and orphanages. If it was determined that a person needed assistance other then that which they could obtain from family and friends they could be placed into a poorhouse. Children that had lost their parents or the parents were deemed unfit to care for them could be placed in orphanages. Neither of these places was considered to be nice places to go to, they weren’t meant to be. Benjamin Franklin was credited with the following quote “I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it”. That was the attitude of the early American poorhouses and orphanages, they did not want to make people comfortable in their poverty but they did provide a place they could be taken care of. Today whether you are willing to work for a living or not it is expected that you will have they same privileges and luxuries as the working class; there seems to be a gate to the upper class that will not be breached. People today just do not think about what they have to do to survive, somehow that is a bad thing, just to survive. What people think today is which credit card I can use to get that flat screen for the bedroom. We have turned around living within our means to mean “just surviving”.
There has been a popular bumper sticker since I was in my teens, “he who dies with the most toys wins”. Instead of being a comical bumper sticker it has become a whole generation’s mantra. What I haven’t figured out is whether that mantra was planted by the Government or the Government saw what the publics’ attitude was and saw an opportunity to push the progressive agenda. I personally believe it was the former. America has always had those that wanted a strong central Government with more control then what the Constitution allows. Prior to the 1900’s the Government went through ups and downs but the people still seemed to keep the Government reigned in enough to be manageable. It is believed that Grover Cleveland was one of the last true conservative Presidents to be in office before the progressive movement really took hold. Starting sometime around the Woodrow Wilson administration the progressive movement got a toehold. There were still a couple like William Harding and Calvin Coolidge that stalled the progressive move but it was not enough to stop it.
In 1909 President Theodore Roosevelt started that ball rolling with a White Conference on how best to deal with poor mothers and their children, the result of this conference was the beginning of the mothers’ pension programs. The first one started in Illinois in 1911; by 1933 all but 2 states had mothers’ pension programs. These programs were run by the States but they were the brainchild of the Federal Government. With the explosion of unemployed at the beginning of the Great Depression State programs and private charities were unable to keep up with the demand for help. In his State of the Union address before Congress in January of 1935 President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared "the time has come for action by the national government" to provide "security against the major hazards and vicissitudes [uncertainties] of life." By August of 1935 the Social Security Act was born.
There are different schools of thought as to whether the Government actually caused the Depression to be worse then it should have been or not. One thing that should be clear is that any program the Government put into place to ease the suffering during the Depression should have had a sunset; it should have gone away once the economy recovered to a point that the assistance was no longer required. But in the true fashion of the Progressive the Government used the Depression as the crisis necessary to advance the Progressive movement. With the birth of Social Security we can also mark the planting of the seeds for all other Government assistance programs and the death of fiscal responsibility in America.
At the beginning of this I asked what have we lost that they had? It is my personal belief that there is much that we have lost. We have lost our sense of fiscal responsibility and we have lost our individuality. George Carlin once did a piece in one of his shows about what is wrong with America. He sums it up with the fact that it’s not our politicians that are the problem, it’s us. The politicians are selected from us by us, they are representatives of the American people therefore we are the ones that have allowed our country to get to the state it is in now and we are the only ones that have any hope of turning it around. If we expect our politicians to showed fiscal responsibility then we need to show it ourselves. We need to restore the definition of making ends meet to what it used to be. We need to learn to live within our means. There is nothing wrong with having luxuries, as long as you can truly afford them. We need to learn to do without at times and learn how to do for ourselves more.
Steve Avery
6/12/11
Monday, May 30, 2011
Popularity Contest
The Presidential election for 2012 is 18 months away and the campaigning has already started. We are already hearing who has the most electablility, not who is the most qualified, or who will be the best one for America, but who is the most electable. The mainstream media is not talking about who has the right ideas about what is best for America or who has the record to back it up, they are talking about who has the best hair, the best tan and is the best orator.
The RNC and the DNC are not concerned with who will do the right things for America; they are concerned with who can get elected and keep them in power, in power to continue the agenda. The problem is that the agenda of the RNC and the DNC may look different from the outside but in truth they are the same. Both parties only want more Government and more power.
Unfortunately the American People are caught up in the parties, even when they have no idea of what their party is doing, all they know is that they are a registered Democrat or Republican and that is how they are going to vote. You can’t be upset with the People, there are so many things going on in the average persons life that make an election just another event on the 6:00 news. With the hustle and bustle of the typical American life picking a President is easier if it’s done American Idol style.
Since Donald Trump has officially dropped out of the Presidential race we can have him pitch it as “So You Think You Can Be President”. It can start November of the year prior to election year with one show a week. The first 6 weeks can be all the challengers. Each week will be a different discussion with each participant having 3 minutes to state their case. To keep things interesting the judges should be from the talk show arena, both TV and Radio, people like Rush Limbaugh, Mike Church, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Glenn Beck, Chris Matthews and others. It needs to be fair so there should be a couple from all sides, right, left, centrist, liberal, conservative, progressive, libertarian and of course pro-constitution. Of course the people will vote each week for who they like the best each week. The judges would have the option of saving an individual but they would have to give their best campaign speech to see if they continue. Just to keep it going no one will be cut for the first 3 months, let everyone have a chance at getting to the finals. The voting will determine their poll standings, just to give the mainstream media something to talk about. After that, one candidate a week will be cut, until we are down to at least one candidate for the last 6 months to go head to head with the incumbent. In a year where the incumbent won’t be running we can have 2 shows going at once, maybe three. One for each of the major parties, Republican and Democrat, and one for the others, the independents, libertarians, green party and who ever else feels lucky.
The last 6 months will be only the finalists for each show, so we could be looking at possibly 3 candidates. This is where the incumbent President, if running, will have to clear his schedule for every Tuesday night. With today’s technology that shouldn’t be a problem, he or she can just do their part from the oval office, or the west wing using Go to meeting.com or Skype. At the end of the second 6 months the American public will phone it their vote for the next President of the United States. If this works out well we can always look at doing the same thing locally in each state for Senators. Of course part of the process will be voting on how well they chose their running mates, how well they tell us how they are going to take care of us from cradle to grave, how well they explain the importance of spreading American democracy across the globe, and how all our entitlement programs are just fine, even though we have fewer and fewer taxpayers each year.
The beauty of this plan is that we can now charge say a dollar for each phone call and call it campaign contributions, not votes. The candidate with the most campaign contributions is the winner for that week, but, the money that is raised will go for paying for the show of course, but whatever is left will go to paying our national debt. Of course this will be limited to calls from within the United States only and something will have to be worked out so that each person of voting age can only call once a week, but hey, if we can track a cow from birth to supermarket I’m sure that can be figured out. This will also cut out campaign contributions from corporations and unions, which I’m sure many will feel is not fair. I know there was a landmark ruling in Virginia recently that stated corporations had the same freedom of speech as individuals when it came to campaign contributions, but how much sense does that make? The CEO of a corporation or the head of a Union may not have the same political attitude as the people that work for that corporation or that are members of that union, but they can use the employees hard work or the union members dues to contribute to political candidates they like? This plan leaves it in the hands of the citizens alone, and putting it on prime time will increase the voting block probably 10 fold, look at the results American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance have had.
Will it matter that we will be electing someone based on charisma, good looks, oratory skills, or how well they can relate to foreign diplomats? Probably not, from the state of things in America now it appears that no one is paying attention to the down hill slide America and our way of life are currently on. At least this way we can cash in a little to pay down the unwieldy debt past and present Presidents and Congress’s have given us while having a little entertainment thrown in.
Steve Avery
5/30/11
The RNC and the DNC are not concerned with who will do the right things for America; they are concerned with who can get elected and keep them in power, in power to continue the agenda. The problem is that the agenda of the RNC and the DNC may look different from the outside but in truth they are the same. Both parties only want more Government and more power.
Unfortunately the American People are caught up in the parties, even when they have no idea of what their party is doing, all they know is that they are a registered Democrat or Republican and that is how they are going to vote. You can’t be upset with the People, there are so many things going on in the average persons life that make an election just another event on the 6:00 news. With the hustle and bustle of the typical American life picking a President is easier if it’s done American Idol style.
Since Donald Trump has officially dropped out of the Presidential race we can have him pitch it as “So You Think You Can Be President”. It can start November of the year prior to election year with one show a week. The first 6 weeks can be all the challengers. Each week will be a different discussion with each participant having 3 minutes to state their case. To keep things interesting the judges should be from the talk show arena, both TV and Radio, people like Rush Limbaugh, Mike Church, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Glenn Beck, Chris Matthews and others. It needs to be fair so there should be a couple from all sides, right, left, centrist, liberal, conservative, progressive, libertarian and of course pro-constitution. Of course the people will vote each week for who they like the best each week. The judges would have the option of saving an individual but they would have to give their best campaign speech to see if they continue. Just to keep it going no one will be cut for the first 3 months, let everyone have a chance at getting to the finals. The voting will determine their poll standings, just to give the mainstream media something to talk about. After that, one candidate a week will be cut, until we are down to at least one candidate for the last 6 months to go head to head with the incumbent. In a year where the incumbent won’t be running we can have 2 shows going at once, maybe three. One for each of the major parties, Republican and Democrat, and one for the others, the independents, libertarians, green party and who ever else feels lucky.
The last 6 months will be only the finalists for each show, so we could be looking at possibly 3 candidates. This is where the incumbent President, if running, will have to clear his schedule for every Tuesday night. With today’s technology that shouldn’t be a problem, he or she can just do their part from the oval office, or the west wing using Go to meeting.com or Skype. At the end of the second 6 months the American public will phone it their vote for the next President of the United States. If this works out well we can always look at doing the same thing locally in each state for Senators. Of course part of the process will be voting on how well they chose their running mates, how well they tell us how they are going to take care of us from cradle to grave, how well they explain the importance of spreading American democracy across the globe, and how all our entitlement programs are just fine, even though we have fewer and fewer taxpayers each year.
The beauty of this plan is that we can now charge say a dollar for each phone call and call it campaign contributions, not votes. The candidate with the most campaign contributions is the winner for that week, but, the money that is raised will go for paying for the show of course, but whatever is left will go to paying our national debt. Of course this will be limited to calls from within the United States only and something will have to be worked out so that each person of voting age can only call once a week, but hey, if we can track a cow from birth to supermarket I’m sure that can be figured out. This will also cut out campaign contributions from corporations and unions, which I’m sure many will feel is not fair. I know there was a landmark ruling in Virginia recently that stated corporations had the same freedom of speech as individuals when it came to campaign contributions, but how much sense does that make? The CEO of a corporation or the head of a Union may not have the same political attitude as the people that work for that corporation or that are members of that union, but they can use the employees hard work or the union members dues to contribute to political candidates they like? This plan leaves it in the hands of the citizens alone, and putting it on prime time will increase the voting block probably 10 fold, look at the results American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance have had.
Will it matter that we will be electing someone based on charisma, good looks, oratory skills, or how well they can relate to foreign diplomats? Probably not, from the state of things in America now it appears that no one is paying attention to the down hill slide America and our way of life are currently on. At least this way we can cash in a little to pay down the unwieldy debt past and present Presidents and Congress’s have given us while having a little entertainment thrown in.
Steve Avery
5/30/11
Thursday, May 5, 2011
What Path Are We On?
Any American that watched the Twin Towers fall, the Pentagon ignite and flight 93 crash had every right to rejoice Sunday night when the news came that Seal Team 6 had gotten Osama Bin Laden. How many have thought about how much our lives have changed because of the man? What would America look like today if September 11, 2001 was just another uneventful day in a long string of uneventful days? After answering these questions one should ask whether or not we were right in getting Osama Bin Laden the way we did and how should we feel about it now?
If 9-11 had never happened would we have gone over to Afghanistan and fought a 10 plus year war against a foe that just can not be beaten? Would President Bush have had the opening to go into Iraq to remove Saddam? How many millions, billions, even trillions of dollars would America have saved? Would we have Homeland Security interfering in nearly every aspect of ours lives? Would TSA have set up shop in our airports violating the very laws that put people on the sexual predators watch list? The “War on Terror” has cost more to Americans then just the loss of a few thousand soldiers.
America has changed forever. Shortly after 9-11 the Patriot Act was passed. Americans that were deeply affected and patriotic were more then willing to let this pass, let the Government do what was necessary to keep America safe. That was just the first step. Next thing we know we have the Department of Homeland Security, more troops going overseas and more of our taxpayer dollars going up in smoke. How many Americans realize that in September of 2009 our lawmakers agreed to triple the foreign aid to Pakistan? This was all done while we were watching our own country sink deeper and deeper into a recession. Besides the foreign aid being doled out has anyone thought about how much money has been spent in keeping our troops overseas? Has anyone added up the amount of money that has been spent in pacifying countries that we are trying to operate from? What about the money that has been spent to implement all the security measures put into place since that tragic day? I haven’t even brought up the changes in attitudes of Americans. I haven’t brought up the opportunities the Government has taken to interfere with our lives and to take more and more power. I haven’t brought up how the lives of the now young adults changed. Would any of these things have happened? Where would we be now if they had not happened? America has changed more then any of us want to believe because of this one man.
The above reasons should be more then enough to justify some celebration by every person that was affected by attacks on 9-11. The above reasons are enough for us to thank all the members of our Military that have fought to find Bin Laden over the past 10 years, and the team that went in and found him. But there are other issues that must be considered, issues that may have ramifications that no one ever imagined.
In our patriotic lust to see justice done it’s possible we have stepped on International Laws, Constitutional Laws and moral laws. The moral laws we will just have to live with, it’s done, accept it, and go on. The International Laws could cause more of a problem, at least for our President and the team that planned, authorized and executed the mission. A team from our Military under the orders of our CIA and the President invaded a sovereign Nation and shot an unarmed man. By rights our President could now be labeled as a war criminal, possibly the entire team could be. Will they? I have no idea. I do believe it could be a possibility given the current decline in our foreign affairs. Next thing that needs to be considered is that there is now a precedence set for the President of the United States to be able to use the Military as, for lack of a better term, a hit squad. President Reagan signed Executive Order 12333 on December 4, 1981, Section 2.11 specifically states “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination”. Has President Obama violated this Executive Order? Has President Obama just set the precedence for not only himself, but all future Presidents to be able to assassinate enemies, political or otherwise, at will; all in the name of “National Security”? Sure the political legal eagles are touting that in a time of war, or for the self defense of the Nation he is well within his rights. But; there are problems with both of those arguments. We are not in a formally declared state of war; war was never declared by Congress on Afghanistan, Pakistan, or even Osama Bin Laden. Secondly self defense means you have a right to protect yourself in an attack, not a 10 year old attack. This defense would not stand up in a court of law for any member of the general public, in the courts eyes that would not be self defense; the roles of victim and aggressor would be reversed.
I feel just as vindicated as the next person with Osama Bin Laden gone, at the same time I am fearful of the path the leaders of our country are taking.
Steve Avery
5/5/11
If 9-11 had never happened would we have gone over to Afghanistan and fought a 10 plus year war against a foe that just can not be beaten? Would President Bush have had the opening to go into Iraq to remove Saddam? How many millions, billions, even trillions of dollars would America have saved? Would we have Homeland Security interfering in nearly every aspect of ours lives? Would TSA have set up shop in our airports violating the very laws that put people on the sexual predators watch list? The “War on Terror” has cost more to Americans then just the loss of a few thousand soldiers.
America has changed forever. Shortly after 9-11 the Patriot Act was passed. Americans that were deeply affected and patriotic were more then willing to let this pass, let the Government do what was necessary to keep America safe. That was just the first step. Next thing we know we have the Department of Homeland Security, more troops going overseas and more of our taxpayer dollars going up in smoke. How many Americans realize that in September of 2009 our lawmakers agreed to triple the foreign aid to Pakistan? This was all done while we were watching our own country sink deeper and deeper into a recession. Besides the foreign aid being doled out has anyone thought about how much money has been spent in keeping our troops overseas? Has anyone added up the amount of money that has been spent in pacifying countries that we are trying to operate from? What about the money that has been spent to implement all the security measures put into place since that tragic day? I haven’t even brought up the changes in attitudes of Americans. I haven’t brought up the opportunities the Government has taken to interfere with our lives and to take more and more power. I haven’t brought up how the lives of the now young adults changed. Would any of these things have happened? Where would we be now if they had not happened? America has changed more then any of us want to believe because of this one man.
The above reasons should be more then enough to justify some celebration by every person that was affected by attacks on 9-11. The above reasons are enough for us to thank all the members of our Military that have fought to find Bin Laden over the past 10 years, and the team that went in and found him. But there are other issues that must be considered, issues that may have ramifications that no one ever imagined.
In our patriotic lust to see justice done it’s possible we have stepped on International Laws, Constitutional Laws and moral laws. The moral laws we will just have to live with, it’s done, accept it, and go on. The International Laws could cause more of a problem, at least for our President and the team that planned, authorized and executed the mission. A team from our Military under the orders of our CIA and the President invaded a sovereign Nation and shot an unarmed man. By rights our President could now be labeled as a war criminal, possibly the entire team could be. Will they? I have no idea. I do believe it could be a possibility given the current decline in our foreign affairs. Next thing that needs to be considered is that there is now a precedence set for the President of the United States to be able to use the Military as, for lack of a better term, a hit squad. President Reagan signed Executive Order 12333 on December 4, 1981, Section 2.11 specifically states “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination”. Has President Obama violated this Executive Order? Has President Obama just set the precedence for not only himself, but all future Presidents to be able to assassinate enemies, political or otherwise, at will; all in the name of “National Security”? Sure the political legal eagles are touting that in a time of war, or for the self defense of the Nation he is well within his rights. But; there are problems with both of those arguments. We are not in a formally declared state of war; war was never declared by Congress on Afghanistan, Pakistan, or even Osama Bin Laden. Secondly self defense means you have a right to protect yourself in an attack, not a 10 year old attack. This defense would not stand up in a court of law for any member of the general public, in the courts eyes that would not be self defense; the roles of victim and aggressor would be reversed.
I feel just as vindicated as the next person with Osama Bin Laden gone, at the same time I am fearful of the path the leaders of our country are taking.
Steve Avery
5/5/11
Monday, May 2, 2011
My Hypocrisy
Recently I was honored to have one of my essays published in the Virginian Pilot. In the online version of the paper there was a comment made that said I was being hypocritical for receiving a pension from the Military and being eligible for Government provided heath care, while also being a proponent of limited Government. At first I got a little thin skinned about the comments; in fact, I was thankful for another commenter that defended my Military service. In short time I came to my senses; I’ve always known that I would have those that disagree with me. The question about my pension and health care is one I should have been prepared for.
While I support a limited Government and reduced entitlements; I do receive a check from the Government each month, but there is a significant difference. I signed a contract with the Government that stated I would follow their every lawful order without question. In return, I gave up my right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the ability to redress for grievances and my family life for 21 years; all in exchange for a pension check. I begrudge no person that has worked for the Government, and fulfilled their contract with the Government, for receiving a pension from the Government. At the same time; if taking away my pension, my earned pension, becomes part of the plan to save our Government from default and for future generations from being slaves to this debt, I will gladly give it up; only after those that are receiving entitlement checks, that are not earned, give up theirs.
Am I being a little thin skinned with this response? Maybe. But I am willing to do what it will take to save our country and get it back on track. Each generation wants to see their children have it easier then they had it, well we can’t say that now, it will not be easier and they will not be better off then we are. I do thank the person that posed the question; it was an honest and fair question.
Steve Avery
5/2/2011
While I support a limited Government and reduced entitlements; I do receive a check from the Government each month, but there is a significant difference. I signed a contract with the Government that stated I would follow their every lawful order without question. In return, I gave up my right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the ability to redress for grievances and my family life for 21 years; all in exchange for a pension check. I begrudge no person that has worked for the Government, and fulfilled their contract with the Government, for receiving a pension from the Government. At the same time; if taking away my pension, my earned pension, becomes part of the plan to save our Government from default and for future generations from being slaves to this debt, I will gladly give it up; only after those that are receiving entitlement checks, that are not earned, give up theirs.
Am I being a little thin skinned with this response? Maybe. But I am willing to do what it will take to save our country and get it back on track. Each generation wants to see their children have it easier then they had it, well we can’t say that now, it will not be easier and they will not be better off then we are. I do thank the person that posed the question; it was an honest and fair question.
Steve Avery
5/2/2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)