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 9^th 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 9^th 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

3/19/2012

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

3/5/2012

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 17^th maybe even the 18^th Century that they were going to make the world Britain?

Steve Avery

2/13/2012

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

The Coming Red Tide

The bloom of the red algae causes an effect called the red tide. It’s nothing more then the spread of algae, normally red, taking all the nutrients and oxygen out of the water. This spread has no care as to what ocean it is in or what coast it is affecting, all it cares about is spreading out and consuming everything in its path. The red tide does not improve anything; it only leaves dead fish and a dying ocean. Our current political and economic situation is a red tide, a growing movement that has little care for what the outcome will be. Just as the red tide has no concern for what ocean or sea it has affected the political direction our Nation is taking has no concern for which party or political action group it consumes, no matter how large or small. All this tide cares about is how much can it eat for itself.

There are plenty of political talk shows on both the television and the radio these days that will feed you all the rhetoric you can stand, regardless of which side of the political fence you stand on. The scary part is when you start really listening to the both sides and actually start to use the brains you were given at birth. If you will clean the wax out of your ears and listen without thinking about which party the talker is on you will hear the same things being said, sure it may sound like there are differing views but they all come to the same end. They all want a bigger Government; its how they want to get us there that is different.

The Occupy crowd and their all over the map list of demands and complaints made me really start listening. The Occupy crowd is protesting the bankers and investors; they are labeling those individuals as the cause for all the woes we are feeling in America today. Their demands include everything from student loan forgiveness all the way up to driving the heads of the Federal Reserve right out of the country. The Occupy movement has now gone so far as to form a pseudo Government, including a finance working group that controls how the donations they have received are used. Keep in mind that many in the Occupy movement are anarchists. I wonder how they feel about their new Government. The media is reporting that somewhere in the neighborhood of $500,000 have been donated to the Occupy Wall Street group and is being held in Amalgamated Bank which touts itself as the only American bank that is %100 Union owned. On line contributions are being processed through an on-line company that is a subsidiary of Visa, a New York Stock Exchange traded company. In other words the Occupy movement is railing against the man and Government while asking the Government to do more for them. They are also emulating the Government by setting up committees they are calling working groups to handle their finances, comfort, food and other necessities. They have entrusted their capital to a financial institution, which they are protesting, capital funneled through a company they are protesting against. The only thing they are not doing that the rest of the Nation is doing is actually earning that money through honest labor of the mind or body, that part they are leaving up to those gullible enough to make donations. The Occupy protestors want to take from the rich, unless it’s the rich they like. There have been several celebrities that have been outspoken about which side they stand on, the interesting thing is when they show up to support the 21st century Woodstock wannabes in their limos. The Occupiers, in all their infinite and misguided wisdom, welcome them with open arms. The right wing talk show media is having a field day with that one. To the right wing media all I have to say is, watch what you are saying, you are doing the same thing in many ways.

Some of the issues actually match those that the Tea Party, for example, has been talking about. The one area that I believe the two sides of the political nickel differ is in the area of the being taken care of by the Federal Government. The Progressive movement wishes to transform the Federal Government into their Robin Hood that will redistribute all the cash; at least until it all runs out. The Conservative side of the fence wants Daddy Warbucks which will keep handing out cash to support the never ending spread of democracy without asking questions; by the way, Daddy Warbucks can be defined as the working class of America.

The “Conservatives” want to string up the President for sending troops into Libya and now Uganda but they want to keep sending troops into Iraq, Afghanistan and if they had their way into Iran. The “Conservatives” want to reduce our foreign aide to help tackle the budget problems we have but that does not mean to stop foreign aide to Israel. Anyone who talks about stopping foreign aide or stopping our continuing intervention into other Nations political affairs is thought to be against defending our Nations National interests. Justify the National interest that can not be handled through free trade agreements. There is also the right wing stance on preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons; did anyone prevent us from getting nuclear weapons? There is the fear being created by Iran parking warships off our coastline. What country has parked ships off every Nations coastline for decades? What country has sent troops into all parts of the world whether they were invited or not? What country has Military bases all other the world? If you answered the United States you would be right. Who should the world be afraid of? I can not decide whether we think we are the keeper of morality, which is not evident if you look at our own country, or are we so arrogant that we believe everyone else in the world is suppose to be like us. Regardless of which one it is it has put us on a path to the destruction of our own way of life. So I guess the attitude of it’s a bad thing unless it’s something we like is good only for the Conservative side of the fence.

I’m also getting very tired of hearing many of the right wing talk show hosts trying to back up their arguments with the Constitution. Have they really read the Constitution? If they have read it do they understand it? While they are spouting off about this Nation needing to get back to the Constitution they are calling President Lincoln one of the greatest Presidents this Nation has seen. Now before everyone starts to jump up and down and call me all sorts of names let me continue. President Lincoln violated the Constitution, plain and simple. Political motivations were the only reasons for his actions; he did not want to go down in history as the President that was in office when the Union was broken. Unfortunately the President did not care as much for the slaves as history has made out. All one has to do is to read the Emancipation Proclamation; it only freed slaves in those States that were not under control of the Union. Growing up I looked at President Lincoln as one of the great men in the history of our country, now as an adult, one that has actually tried to learn the Constitution and what it means, I have a different take on it. I understand why President Lincoln did what he did but I have to wonder how many American lives would have been saved if the President had allowed the South to secede and how long slavery would have survived. Personally I believe slavery was dying of natural causes and if the South had seceded trade treaties between the North and South could have stipulated trade with slave owning plantations or non slave owning plantations. Economy is a stronger weapon then bullets in the long run. If you are going to use the Constitution as one of your tools to fight the Progressive movement you can not compromise, you have to accept that not all Presidents followed the Constitution, in fact, most Presidents violated the Constitution. When trying to sell the Constitution to the voters you should not use a President that was possibly one of the biggest violators of the Constitution in trade for political history.

I have another pet peeve with some of the right wing talk show hosts; they like to quote parts of George Washington’s farewell speech, particularly the parts about morals and religion. Those are good lessons to be learned but there is more to that speech. In President George Washington’s farewell speech he warned us of becoming entangled in the politics of other Nations. He warned that while we should trade with all, political entanglements would only end in us becoming entangled in their wars. If you are going to use the Presidents address as part of your talking points then use it all, learn all the lessons he was trying to teach us, not just the ones that you like. Oh yea, that’s right, it’s the same as we don’t like the rich except the ones we like.

The moral to the above is that in order to fix the things that are driving America off the cliff, as the Politicians like to say, we have to be willing to take a critical look at the side we think we support as well as the other side. I personally believe in the Constitution but I’m not naive enough to believe that we can just jump back to following the Constitution and all will be ducky. We are going to go through a rough time, in fact, no matter whom the winner is and which side you support, we are going to go through a rough time. It’s time to decide what you would like to see at the end of the rough times, do you want freedom and liberty or do you want to be taken care of from cradle to grave like they were in George Orwell’s novel 1984? Just because things have always happened a certain way, or you have always voted a certain party does not mean that it’s right or that it’s going to continue to go that way. We all have to take the blinders off and listen to what is being said, think about what it really means; then you decide for yourself what the best choice is. Stop blindly listening to the talking heads. Once you do that the only other thing I suggest is to get involved, even if that only means that you vote your conscience, whether it is the party line or not.

Steve Avery
10/26/2011

Political Causes and Effects III

Taxation

Benjamin Franklin once said, “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”. Never have truer words been spoken, especially today. As one of the Founders of this Nation I have a hard time believing Dr. Franklin envisioned the tax burden we now have when he spoke those words. True, we have to have some taxation in order to have a Government to handle the affairs of this Nation. Contrary to what some may think, we have to have a Federal Government, what we do not need to have is an overpowering Federal Government with out of control spending and a tax code that is so large and convoluted that no one, not even the people that wrote it, can understand.

Over the past several years there has been talk of revising or repealing the tax code to come up with something that is a little easier to understand and a tax structure that spreads the burden and bit more evenly then it is currently. Of course neither of these is being welcomed with open arms, mainly because a simpler tax code would expose the dirty dealings of our Politicians and close legal loopholes that tax lawyers use to help their clients pay less in taxes. Having a system that is more evenly apportioned among the population would mean that those in the lower incomes might actually have to pay taxes. Current reports put the entire tax burden on somewhere less then half the working population with the upper 5% of those paying somewhere better the 40% of that tax burden. Somehow that does not sound fair to me but the rallying cry of many seems to be that the rich, those in the upper 5% of income earners, must pay their fair share. It would be easier to understand if they, those that are shouting that cry, would just say they want the rich to support everyone else and be done with it. Since that is not going to happen let’s look at my idea of taxation.

The first enumerated power for the Congress states “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”. There is nothing in there that states that the taxes have to be collected from individual citizens directly. It is my opinion that in order to reign in the current Federal Government and to keep future Federal Governments in check there should be no Federal income, sales or capital gains tax and for that matter no taxes of any type directed at the individual citizens. The Federal Government must submit an annual budget that should reflect what the Federal Government needs to perform the duties that are enumerated in the Constitution, nothing more. If the Congress worked the way it is suppose to work they would review the budget and give their yea or nay based on whether or not the budget supported the powers in the Constitution. Once Congress approves the budget the State Governments would then receive, for lack of a better term, a bill from the Federal Government on the tax owed by the States based on population or land mass that they shall pay to support the Federal Government. I personally prefer it to be based on population, which would be in keeping with what I believe the Founders meant when they said “uniform throughout the United State”. How the individual States raise the taxes is up to them based on their Constitutions and what their legislatures and citizens decide. States could go for income taxes, sales taxes, a combination of both or bake sales for that matter, as long as they pay their fair share to support the Federal Government.
A large central Government trying to establish a tax code for a population that is as large as the United States and as diverse as the United States just does not make sense. The citizens start to believe their vote doesn’t count and they rely entirely on their elected officials. Bringing the tax burden down to smaller individual scales will make it easier, and hopefully more likely, for the citizens to pay attention to where their money is going and how it is collected. Bringing it down to a State level will also end, hopefully, much of the bickering back and forth about who is and who is not paying taxes or their fair share.
There is another benefit to this plan. If you are not happy about the way taxes are collected in you State you have the option of moving to a State that is more in line with your thinking. Of course that sounds easier then it really is, many people have ties to their property or State while others may not feel they can afford to move. Herein lays another benefit, when the decisions, the voting, are made by a smaller segment of the population, State versus entire Country, each vote counts for more. This would also make it easier to contact your legislatures, many of whom may be from your own neighborhood, to voice your opinion and concerns.
I know there are going to be problems with a plan like this so let’s explore a few that came to mind and what may be the solutions to them. One problem is that there has to be some way of guaranteeing that the States pay. The Constitution states that the Federal Government will provide for the common defense, if a State does not pay, they should not be under the protection of the United States. The same would be true with trade agreements made with foreign Nations and with maintaining regular trade with the other States in the Union. Naturally to go along with this the 17th Amendment would have to be repealed to place the proper checks and balances back in Congress. Another problem, and one that would be difficult to overcome, would be convincing Congress that this is the right thing to do. They would have to be convinced to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments the write an Amendment for a balanced budget within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, to include paying back the current debt, and an Amendment to make my plan legal and Constitutional. Congress loves their power so this will be one of the largest hurdles to clear. Another problem is that the Governors and the State Legislatures are comfortable letting the Federal Government do the heavy lifting, a far cry from 150 years ago. States would actually have to rely on themselves, no more Federal money coming back down the line. The last and possibly the hardest hurdle to clear would be convincing the people. There is a large percentage of the population that believes the Federal Government is the all knowing and all doing ruler of the country. They enjoy receiving their Federal benefits and they know that it is easier convince one group over convincing 50 groups. The same is true with special interest groups and their lobbyists.
I know this plan is not perfect and I’m sure I’ve over simplified it. The reason we initially had a Republic with indirect democracy was so that we could elect public officials that were to listen to us and put our ideas into workable forms. This plan would also put teeth back in both the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights. There are those that are talking about secession being the only way to save our Nation, maybe, but wouldn’t you rather try just getting back to a true Union of States that are banding together for the important things that need to be handled at a central level while maintaining their own powers and their own personalities?
Steve Avery
10/17/2011

We Have Exactly What He Asked For

In the very first article I wrote I talked of the things that were on the horizon for us as a Nation. It was pure speculation based on the events that were taking place. Looking at the TARP and stimulus packages that were being passed to bailout poorly run companies and then the Healthcare and Cap and Trade bills that were being proposed led me to believe that the administration and Congress were steering us down a path to Socialism. I wrote of the need for all to pull their heads from the sand and get educated on the issues and the up and coming politicians.

The Tea Parties started out doing just this. They were encouraging the masses to educate themselves and to properly vet the candidates on the ballots. Their efforts showed in the 2010 mid-term elections, somewhat. The problem with those elections was that not all the candidates the Tea Party supported turned out to be true defenders of the Constitution. Another problem with the mid-term elections and the success of the Tea Party was the attention the Tea Party has received from the GOP and from the Democratic Party. The GOP has tried to incorporate the Tea Party into the GOP, seeing that a fair number of Americans are starting to open their eyes and pay attention. Unfortunately this incorporation into the GOP will only corrupt the Tea Party into just another extension of the GOP; this is not to say all those that call themselves Tea Partiers or all Tea Party groups are incorporated into the GOP, only the idea of the Tea Party. The true Tea Party is not doing enough to separate themselves from the GOP and call out those that are trying to claim a Tea Party and GOP allegiance.

The Democratic base on the other hand saw the Tea Party as a roadblock to their plans. Specifically they saw the awakening of the People as the roadblock. The leadership of the Democratic Party and of the current administration came out and openly downplayed the Tea Party movement as being a front for the rich. The Democratic Party called the Tea Party movement an Astroturf movement backed by the rich elite of corporations. Truth is that the Democratic Party saw that the Tea Party movement and anyone that believed in the Constitution and what it stood for stood between them and their plans for as large a central Government as they could possible create. The Democratic Party, and many in the GOP, dreams of a Government that has control over every aspect of the Country, including our lives and how we live them.

When the uprising in Egypt occurred the administration saw the opportunity they had been waiting for. The chance to ignite a spark for the movement towards Socialism couldn’t be better unless they had planned it themselves, maybe even better since they can call it spontaneous, grass roots. Our President and other members of his administration and Congress openly supported the protestors in Egypt and then again in Libya. The President came right out and praised the youth for protesting for what they felt was right, encouraging the same in America. Lenin is credited with coining the term “useful idiots” to describe Soviet sympathizers, persons that really had no idea of what they wanted or what they were headed for. The behind the scenes organizers, the ones that never get their hands dirty are the ones that know what the ultimate goal is, the ones on the streets causing chaos, they are the “useful idiots”. The Egyptian protests started in Jan of 2011, then came the Libyan protests and the Wisconsin State Teachers Union protests in Feb, who could ask for a better setup to stir up all the radicals that really do not know what they want, they just want chaos and a reason to protest. Washington has exactly what they asked for with the “Occupy Wall Street” protests.

From all reports I have heard there is not a clear purpose to be had in the crowd; I have even gone to their website and the only thing I can find is that they consider themselves the 99%ers and they are against the 1%ers. The 1%ers they are talking about are the rich that according to just about every report you can find on who pays taxes are the ones that are footing better then 40% of the total tax bill. These are the People that are paying the majority of the taxes that support these supposed 99%. You have to give them credit, or at least the ones behind the scenes, they are quickly spreading across the Nation, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, Atlanta, where’s next?

The Minority Leader of the House has come right out and phrased the protestors and their grass roots efforts, grass roots? Unions are supporting the protestors, how is that grass roots? This Government, pick your party, has been trying to get us into a Socialistic Society. Whether you like it or not you need to face it. By keeping the protestors going on Wall Street the Government can wait until things have gotten to a point where only the Government, at least in their eyes, can fix things. Remember, the United States has appointed itself the Police Force of the World. This Government will not allow another Country to come in as we did in Libya, for that matter true American Patriots will not all it. But the Government will appoint themselves to be the only ones that can stop the protests, when the timing is right for them. The Government will use these protests to put more regulations on Wall Street and all those filthy bankers and investors. This will be done under the guise of appeasing the protestors and giving the masses what they think they want. Never mind the fact that those bankers and investors are the ones that start businesses, businesses that employee people and produce things. It’s not the Unions that produce; it’s the members of the Unions that are being used by the Unions as cash cows. It’s not the Government that produces jobs; it’s the bankers, the investors and those that have real ideas.

For close to a century or more now the Government has been slowly but surely steering us on a course towards total Governmental control. I can not put my finger on the single event that awoke the People that actually believe in liberty, believe in freedom and believe that yes we need a Government, but not a Government with total control over our very lives. Maybe it was a slow awakening but it has been one. It has been one that has also sparked the progressive movement out of hiding and into full gear. There is one goal in Washington, that goal is for Washington to be the center of all power. I don’t remember where I wrote it but I fear that if given the right circumstances we may have seen the last Presidential election. With enough unrest in the Country I can see this President and this administration either pushing through legislation for complete martial law over the country or something similar; only after things get beyond the control of the local Government. Remember, the local Governments will do nothing against the protests that might anger the Federal Government. The States have lost their power, they gave it up to the Federal Government, and they gave up the Republic. If Congress; which has become almost as invalid as State Governments, does not pass legislation to take the power then I would not put it past this President to sign an Executive Order. I have questioned the validity of Executive Orders in the past and I can not find anything in the Constitution that authorizes them. Sure they may be assumed to be legal as far as carrying out the actual powers the President has, but not for legislating laws. Executive Orders have been misused by just about all the Presidents; we have never questioned it, why would we start now?

The progressive movement has claimed that anyone that believes in the Constitution wants a revolution, really? The Tea Party and those that want a limited Government are not the ones that are talking about violence; they are the ones that are talking about getting back to the Constitution or at least getting the Government under control and to curb the spending. The protestors on Wall Street have talked of revolution; the environmentalists have used violent tactics to pursue their end; not the Tea Party or the Constitutionalists. The question then is, do you want to save your Country or do you want to destroy it and change it to something different, something where personal liberty and freedom will be a thing of the past.

Steve Avery
10/10/11