When To Pull Up Stakes

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

            The political environment of the United States today is such that no matter what City, County or State you go to you are still there.  You are still in the same political environment.  In the brief life span this Nation has enjoyed we have gone from being 13 Colonies under British rule to 13 sovereign States with their own Constitutions uniting together for the purpose of defense to 50 States that have given away their sovereignty to a central Government that is usurping more power and control daily.  There is no where to go within the United States to change you political environment.  Sure there are States that are making noise about regaining their sovereignty, some have even passed a law or two to nullify some of the more freedom damaging laws the Federal Government has passed.  None so far have come right out and reclaimed their sovereignty.  The political environment in the world is just as bad or even worse in many cases.  With all the problems we do have in the United States it is still one of the freest places in the world to live, it’s just not as free as it should be or as many believe it to be.

           

Due to the current political environment across our Nation I now have to wonder how long it will be before people start to pull up stakes in the sense of changing what they are doing.  Exactly what you can do when you pull up stakes will depend on your financial status and whether or not you are an employer, employee or self employed.  The reason I mentioned financial status first is because this is the area that could have the largest effect on the Nation as a whole.  With our ever growing National debt and our Governments resistance to balance the budget the talk seems to always go to increasing the taxes on the “rich”.  The “rich” are those that, according to the White House, make more then $250,000 a year and do not pay their fair share of taxes.  These are the scum that find all the loopholes in the tax code that allow them to pay a lower percentage of their income than their secretaries.  These are the bloodsuckers that only earned their fortunes on the backs of those less fortunate than them.  These are the people that should feel blessed to pay more, they should feel fortunate to be able to give more of their blood money so that it may be given to those unfortunates that they stood on to earn it, those unfortunates deserve it.  Well, at least those are the things that those with socialist ideals will tell you to justify the taxing of the “rich”.  What they won’t tell you is that the loopholes they speak of are the ones that they wrote into the tax code to help themselves and their “rich” friends.  They won’t tell you exactly what percentage of what appears to be income of these “rich” individuals is put back into what ever business they started in order to keep the business going, grow the business and hire more employees.  They also will not tell you that much of the income of the “rich” comes from investments, investments that are available to anyone that is willing to either do a little research or to find someone they can trust to do the investing for them.  They also will not tell you that any tax increase on the “rich” will more then likely be passed on to either the employees or to the consumer, they are businessmen, they did not get the title of being “rich” by giving away their product or service.  They also will not tell you that without the “rich” many, if not all, of the products and services we now enjoy will not be there, they are the ones that took the chance, invested their money and applied their mind to provide these products and services for us.  Sure they benefit from their profits but we benefit from them, just look at your cell phone and try to create one from scratch.  The last thing they won’t tell you, in fact they will not even think of this themselves since they would not want to admit it, is that many of those that are benefiting from the “social” programs provided for by the Federal Government and funded by the taxpaying portion of the population contribute nothing to the welfare of the Nation.  They do not provide a service or create a product and they are not gainfully employed, if they were they would not need the “social” programs.  So exactly who is obtaining their income on the backs of others, the “rich” that have earned it or the “social” program recipients?

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

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

1- All States reclaim their sovereignty.

2- Abolish the tax code completely.

3- The States will determine what type of revenue generating system they want for their State.

4- The States will pay an equally apportioned amount to the Federal Government to provide for the common defense of the Nation and for the necessary functions of the Federal Government required to negotiate trade agreements with Foreign Nations.  The Federal Government will also retain the role of arbiter between the States.

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

1- The citizens will have increased control over the taxation of their hard earned income.

2- Increased control over the States spending.

3- Prevent the taxes from someone in FL from being spent on a bike path in NC.

4- States will retain the means to control Federal spending by either approving or withholding funds.

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

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

Steve Avery

4/24/12

The Founding and the Defining of the United States of America

Part 3

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

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

            The Preamble is a very simple straight forward statement;

“The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

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

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

Amendment I

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

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

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

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

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

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

Steve Avery

3/27/2012

The Founding and the Defining of the United States of America

Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Unfortunately Judges both at the State level and the US Circuit Court level try to incorporate the Constitution into State Law while our Supreme Court Justices interpret laws and rulings as they wish to support the agenda of incorporation, incorporating the Bill of Rights to override State Constitutions, and their personal views.  In many cases that are currently heard at the Supreme Court level and at the US Circuit Court level the first question should be, how does this apply to the Constitution and the Federal Government?  The next statement should then be, case dismissed or the case is to be heard at the State Supreme Court level.  A good example of this was when California passed Prop 8 banning same sex marriage.  They did it in accordance with the Constitution of the State of California.  The US 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