Constitutional Libertarianism

Constitutional Libertarianism

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

So, let's break down some terms today.  Just to see where we really stand.

Let's say, for the purpose of discussion, that we have the spectrum of liberal and conservative on one hand and the spectrum of authoritarian and libertarian on the other hand.

Mind you, the following definitions are the "extreme" ends and very few people actually embody the mat this degree, but when you have met someone at these extremes, you'll know it.

First of all, what is a "conservative"?   Basically, it's a person who does it by the book.  Everything is aid out, itemized and detailed line by line.  Do not deviate from the book.  The book is good, the book is all.  That is your hard line conservative.

Conversely, your hard core "liberal" is the "rules, who needs rules?" person.  It gets down to making it up as you go along. It's pretty close to "I'll do what  I want to do and you do what you want to do and whatever happens, happens."

Now, "authoritarians"  are those who think there needs to be someone in authority and someone who is under that authority.  These are the "know your place and stay there" types.  Slavery is a pretty good representation of the extreme "authoritarian" relationship.

On to the "Libertarian" end. This is the "I am my own boss and nobody, no how at no time will ever tell me what to do" crowd.  If you are looking for anarchy, you will find it in the libertarian/liberal extreme.  Conversely, if you want a repressed society, look to the consrevative/authoritarian far end.

Now, how many of us are really such total extremists to say we agree with such postions perfectly?

Not very many of us, that's for sure.  Now think of those extreme ends in respect to the U.S. Constitution.  Lok at the persepctive from which it was written.  look at the terminology and manner in which it was written.

This constitution was not written by extremists of any of those four corners.  As a matter of fact, there is quite a centered tone it takes.

It refers very frequently to keeping individuality and personal liberty throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

It also seeks to set parameters of oversight rather than specifically spelling out every detail.  Not exceedingly conservative or liberal.

In today's political soapboxing, people who try to find a reasonable place in the midlle of those extremes are called "centrists" and "moderates" by those closer to the extremes.  Very often, they are referred to in a negative light, with scorn.

Myself, I think that as a group of independent, individuals, making our own way through life, yet sharing a common space and living among each other, there need to be agreements, rules to make sure we respect and are respected. 

I believe that each rule in itself is not so much a "written in stone" rule and is more of a parameter to take into consideration the details and circumstances of each situation.

I think that your rights end where mine begin and vice versa. 

I do not think there is a "greater good" in terms of nationalism or some other contrived communal identity.  It is me and mine, there is you and yours, there is they and theirs. 

Nothing in life is fair, nothing is guaranteed beyond that which the Constitution stipulates.  I don't owe you anything and you don't owe me anything beyond respecting the Constitution.








Friday, November 11, 2011

What does "Independent" mean to me.

I am Independent.

I live in a country where the Constitution gives each individual person, not parties , companies, hives or gangs, rights and freedom.

I believe we are a country of individuals sharing a place where we come together in agreement to respect each other enough to share common goals and boundaries so as to be able to live among each other as peaceably as possible.

I believe our Constitution is meant for a person to do their duty by stepping up to serve as a representative to our shared government.  Then that person is thanked and goes back to his or her life.  Not enjoy a new life as a member of a protected ruling class.

I do not believe that corporations are people.  People are people, something is wrong with our society when status of being a "person" is conferred to a non-living entity for the sake of money.

 I do not believe in false nationalism.  America is only something to be proud of as long as the people are living in a way to be proud of.

America is not "Free" unless every individual is free.

I believe one person's rights end where the next person's begins.

I believe the "greater good" is one which ensures each and every person's right to live as they choose is respected.

This country was not formed for a "Greater Good", it was formed to allow individual persons to live their their own lives as they choose for themselves.  Freely and without being determined or controlled by a government, religion, group or person.

My rights are my rights, your rights are your rights.  That might mean we have something in common, but it does not mean we are joined at the hip.

Choosing to be neighborly, charitable, and friendly are good things if one chooses to act so toward others.  It is something altogether different when it is imposed or assumed upon you by others to do so.  It cheapens them, demeans them and makes them a task rather than the freely given gifts they are supposed to be.

I am an Independent.  I think for myself,  I speak for myself and I take action for myself. 


I will defend those rights for myself and for you to do it for yourself to my last dying breath.

I will not live my life for you though.   I will not ask you to do so for me.

I am a free, independent person and I will stand side by side with other free, independent people to preserve that.

The Constitution and Each Person's Rights

Everyone loves to talk abou twhat right they have to do something.

This comes up most often in discussions about free speech.  Everyone wants to say they have the right to say what they want to say, show a picture they want to show, sing a song they want to sing, etc.. etc...

However, while the Constitution does give that right to expression, it says nowhere in the Constitution that others have to listen, see, view, or expose themselves to what someone else wants to express.

One person's rights end where the next person's rights begin.

Interestingly enough, there are too many people who seem to have the idea that just because they have the right to say something, it somehow means that everyone else is forced to accept it.

On the contrary, The Constitution grants the same rights to every individual.


Those rights are not just for some.  Many folks will be disappointed to realize that each person's expression is not a royal decree that everyone else is compelled to see or support.

If I know that someone is showing something  I find repulsive,  I can simply not go to view it, hear it, etc..   I can avoid it, ignore it and simply not experience it at all.

What's interesting is how people want to trick others into being exposed to their "expressions".

Instead of letting people know what it is, when, where, etc.. ahead of time so people can attend or avoid at their own discretion, they want to simply come out of the blue with their "expressions".

They want to force you to have to experience their expression whether you wanted to or not.  They somehow have the idea that once they have decided to express themselves that everyone else is just stuck with having to experience it.

Yes, if we can accidentally or un-knowingly stumble upon such an deceptive effort, we can quickly an of our our choice leave, re-reoute ourselves, etc.. to avoid it in the future at that point, place, time, etc..

Howwver, this shows that a person using such tactics has no responsibility for their actions.  They are forcing everyone else to be responsivble for dealing with itas they encounter it.

There is no respecting or taking "serious" someone who so blatantly abuses their rights by foisting their expression upon others irresponsibly.

Someone who ignores everyone else's rights to choose for themselves simply to create an audience for something they want to express.

Yes, we each have the right to express ourselves and not be punished for it by the government (that's what the First Amendment guarantees, you know), but we each also have the freedom to choose for ourselves what we are exposed to and experience.

One freedom does not beat the other.  We should always make the effort to practice our individual, personal freedoms responsibly.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Legislating "normal"

What is "normal"?  Most people think of "normal" as the way things are in a vast majority of examples.

For example, if perhaps, 95 out of 100 people in a region are all born with dark skin, having dark skin for those people would be considered "normal".

Human beings have two legs, two arms, one head.  This occurs so often that it is considered "normal".  Anyone born with or having a difference from those is considered not "normal.

People count on things being "normal" so much so that when something comes up that is not normal, people tend to find a way to correct it or make it as close to normal as possible.

This is why deformities and birth defects have so many doctors trying to find ways to prevent or correct them as soon as possible.

Conditions and diseases that are passed genetically have millions of dollars and thousands of people looking for ways to "cure" them.

No one seems to be arguing that finding a "cure" for Down's Syndrome is something to work for.

Everyone seems in agreement that polio is something that should be "cured".

Yet, we have politicians and people who want to change through legislation, to force a new "normal" on a society when they think there is something to gain by it.

Anything from deviant behavior to sexual "orientation" is being pushed on society at large to accept as normal what most people see as not "normal".

They work to try to tie things together.  for example that one must accept the behavior and the "person" at the same time or it is an expression of "hate" and thus the not recognizing of it as "normal" is criminalized.

This is so far from accurate.  We tell each other daily that we must separate the action from the person.

We say that what a person does is not necessarily what a person is.

Someone who steals a loaf of bread is not necessarily an evil, bad person.   They made a bad choice, they need to amend for that bad choice but they are not necessarily a bad person because of a bad choice.

We do not have to accept not "normal" behavior while at the same time, we still accept the person.

For example, to find it necessary to legislate property sales and rentals based on anything beyond potential to pay ones rent or mortgage is understandable.

If someone is "born " a certain way.  Without an appendage, or with a mental handicap or blind, deaf, etc...  it isn't necessary to itemize those situations.  It is only necessary to tell the seller/rentor that as long as the customer is able to show ability to make payment, there is no need to deny opportunity.

Government has no business trying to re-define "normal" via legislation  and thus making behaviors, actions, etc.. that are commonly perceived as "not normal" and force folks to see them as "normal"  That is nothing more than an ugly effort at social control.

Our government needs to knock off the social experiments and stick to doing those things the Constitution requires of it, nothing more.

Monday, October 24, 2011

Watch out for mob rule.

Raise you hands if you know that the United States of America was not made to be a "true" democracy.  No sirree, we are not.  The United States Constitution sets us up to be a democratic republic.

For those who didn't pay attention in government class, a republic is governed by a constitution.  Our republic is governed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

This is our "master" document. We are a land of law.  Our laws, once set, stand alone.  No individual stands above the law.  No group stands above the law.

A "true" democracy is the majority rules.  Period.  if you get your gang to put up enough votes against the other gang and your gang has more votes, you win.  The laws change with every gang that ends up with more voting members.

We see this enacted everyday by the contests between the Republicans and Democrats who keep trying to gain enough members to get the most votes.

Thankfully, the law of our land, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, isn't so easily changed as by a simple mob vote.  Otherwise, our country would have ended up down the tubes long before now.

Why is that? Because at it's core, the most basic principles of our Constitution are spelled out to protect the individual American.

Did you ever read the Constitution?  Did you notice how often it uses the word "person"?  Take a look sometime and you will see that in every case, the wording is directed to effectively identify individual person's rights and abilities within the law.  Do you know why?  Because the Constitution recognized that we are all individual people here, not a collective.


The Constitution begins with the phrase "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..."  What is a union, you ask?  By definition a union is "a number of persons, states, etc., joined or associated together for some common purpose". (highlighting is my own).

We are individual persons who, on occasion, come together for the purpose of making sure our interests are represented and our votes are counted.


After this coming together, we go back on our separate ways.  We go back to our own individual lives, making our own choices.


See, we "come together"  not stay bonded together.  Not meld with each other.  We don't give up our individuality in order to share a common experience.


Our Constitution sees everyone under it as individuals sharing a common space and provides a framework so that we can continue with our lives as individuals but keeping respect to the fact that no one individual is entitled to more power or permission than any other individual.

One thing that those who would try to rule over others will say to try to be persuasive is that we must be willing to sacrifice for "The Greater Good".

Just what is this "Greater Good" though?  By using that term, they refer to the whole of the group of us as opposed to the one.  Ever heard the phrase "but we're doing it for the kids..."?  They try to make you see yourself not as an individual but as already being "one of us", or part of the group and the only way to save yourself is to save the whole group.

Don't get me wrong, as Americans we do have at least one thing in common that is worth banding together to protect.  The Constitution itself.

Our Constitution has already been embattled by gangs and mobs calling themselves parties who try to change the way things work in or country for "their team".

They use fraudulent tricks, misdirection and any other un-ethical tools, yet still "legal" at hand to "interpret" the meaning of the Constitution so as to convince others their behavior is condoned.

What is an "interpretation" anyway?  it's enough people within the legal and government system who agree that one thing means or leads to another.  Get enough members of a gang to have the most votes and you have successfully re-interpreted something in the Constitution.

We are a nation of independent people, as determined by the Constitution of the United States of America.  Every time you give in and become just another member of a gang, a mob or a "party", you give that mob more authority over yourself and sadly, with enough mob votes, authority over others who did not want or need the gangs representation or control over their lives.

You who support and condone an America where a few should rule over the many, regardless of your excuse, are cowards and fascists. 

You who work so that the many should rule over the few are just as bad.  You are like the "Borg" of science fiction, where the individual doesn't exist except as cannon fodder for the whole.

I ask you to put aside false nationalism, lay down your party membership and your efforts to rule in the guise of the "Greater Good".

Stand on your own and think for yourself.  Vote with your own one vote at every opportunity, based on each issue as it presents itself.

Monday, October 17, 2011

Talking and Do-ing, the problem with protesting in America.

I do believe protesting needs an upgrade.

If you want to make a dent in corporate America's wallet, then you have to do it first, then talk about it.

For example, the people moaning and groaning about not being able to carry  protest signs and cameras in groups into a business shouldn't be surprised.

As much as you have a right to communicate your position, people have a right to not have their business cluttered or have their property transgressed on.

Leaving ethics out of the discussion for the moment, legally speaking, your right to communicate ends where my right to defend my property and well being begin.  If you came into my store with protest signs, cameras and making a fuss, I'd kick you out to.  I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone and I am a sole proprietor, not incorporated.

You want to come in and do business, fine come in, sensibly, respectfully and let's do business.  You want to close your account with my business because you don't like my policies?  Fine, go right ahead.  It's a free country we're still told, so close you're accounts.  It's part of the business world to lose customers and get more customers.   I shouldn't be shocked.

You want to go outside on public property and crow to your buddies and anyone who'll listen about your accomplishment and your problem, nothing I can do there, but in my shop, on my time, you will follow my rules as long as they are within the law.

Now personally and ethically, I am so far distanced from their so called "one percent" it's not funny.

I can tell you this though,  if I am in a conflict and I want to get what's mine,  I just go get it. 

I have had a problem with a bank before, a few of them, and wanted to close my accounts because I thought they treated customers like crap.

You know what I did?   I walked in, by myself, stood in line, got to the clerk and said "I need a complete withdrawal, I am closing my account."  When they asked me why,  I said I didn't like my experience with their business and I was going to another bank.   I wouldn't elaborate,  I wouldn't argue,  I wouldn't allow them to do anything more than complete the transaction.  Then I left.

After the fact,  I told everyone I knew and even a few others within earshot what I did and what I thought of those banks.

I do believe that a few of the people I told did also close their accounts as well.

Now, if you want to coordinate with a large group of others and really make a statement, what I would do is get online and coordinate as many people as I could to form a single, quiet line at the bank on the same day at the same time.  no posters, no noise and chatter.  then one by one, go to the clerk and close the account in full.  Next person, same thing.  Next person, same thing, etc..etc...etc...

Go down a block or wherever  I got my permit for a public gathering on public property and stage a "Survivors Site" where people could go to share their stories of dis-satisfaction and ad their name to a lareg board or wall counting the number of people who have just closed their accounts at that bank.

Make a celebration of it.  A victory party.  Don't sit there and be negative and harass people.  Give concrete examples and present what you did as a positive, successful thing.  Invite the press, pass out cookies or something else that seems celebratory, as well as flyers and such.

That will get a lot more attention and recruits and make the publicity go a mile further at the same time.

That's what I would do if  I wanted to get back what was mine and stick it to "da man" at the same time.

Get the job done first and brag about it afterward, not the other way around.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

The fine line between law and ethics

This recent "movement" called "Occupy Wall Street" has people talking.

True, most of it is partisan rhetoric on all sides, as is typical.  Let's focus on a few things here though.

First of all, it is not a crime to be "rich" in the united States.  How much money one does or does not have should have no bearing at all as to their protection under the Constitution.

One of the big questions here though is, "How did some of these people become rich?"


There are gaps and loopholes in the tax system that allow deductions and opportunities to "hide" income from taxation that only some are able to take advantage of.  They are not equally accessible by anyone and everyone.  That is one problem right there.

Another problem is that so called "Wall Street" or as I like to refer to them as the "Corporate Crony Capitalism" bunch, have established a culture of 'money first'.

Here is where some things that are done by the big money folks are often considered un-ethical but are not necessarily illegal.

For example, no matter how you try to justify it, preventing fair and open competition in the marketplace is not considered "fair play" by most individual's standards.  Yet, our colleges and top business people teach exactly that as "professional business" behavior.

It's been pretty well acknowledged by most folks that our elected representatives are on the take form corporations and millionaires. They have been for many years now and it seems that they won't be changing that any time soon.

Obviously, our government bureaucracy finds it ok that if one has enough money, bribery and extortion of our elected representatives is just something that has to be tolerated because none of them will have the fortitude to stand up to and put an end to the practice.

No,  I will never say that just because someone has chosen to make money the most important thing in their life and dedicate themselves to the accumulation of it, they have every right to not be unfairly taxed or unduly pressed by the government because of it.

I might disagree with the notion that accumulation of money is the most important thing in one's life, but hey, we're all different people.

However, the infamous "they" say that everyone/everything has a price tag on it.  There are people with the financial resources out there who apparently take every opportunity to test that theory out.

However, our government and our elected representatives must be taken off the auction block.  Steps need to be in place that removes those temptations and prevents that atmosphere of greed from reaching our duly elected.

By all means, hunt and convict everyone who made their riches illegally.  Yes,  I applaud the effort to shame every rascal who used immoral and unethical means to make their money.

At the same time, there is another phrase I think is just as important.

"Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."

When are we going to stop allowing these charlatans and crooks who make their money mischievously to keep playing their same games and treating people, us, the same way over and over again?

I think we are all as much to blame for the financial woes of the world because we keep going back to the bankers and the con men and the day traders and the investment brokers who we allow to herd us through a never ending chute that inevitably leads us to our own financial demise.

When will we demand the government stop getting into bed with corporations and forcing people to do business and make purchases in the name of bureaucracy and back door dealings.  The government has no ethical or legal right to make people buy something.  Yet they continue to finagle and "interpret" with their rooms full of lawyers what the Constitution says.

No, in the long run, it's our own dang fault that the government and rich folk are in bed together.  As long as we they threaten that our air conditioning and microwave ovens will keep going, no one wants to rock the boat.  The larger population keeps falling back into line.

When we want to blame someone for the decline of our great country, point first to the person in the mirror.

Saturday, October 1, 2011

The Constitution has treason covered, Can't Obama read?

In the U.S. Constitution, Article 3 Section 3, it says...

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

For all the emotional, revenge seekers in the crowd out there, if you value the Constitution at all, you will respect that it is bigger than one lame brain terrorist wannabee.

The process to have had Anwar al-Awlaki declared as having committed treason is as important as any court trial of any common suspect of a crime.

We are a nation of laws, not lynch mobs, even if the President himself leads the lynch mob and that's exactly what he did.

This President, Barrack Obama, is guilty of murdering a U.S. citizen without due process of law or adhering to Constitutional guidelines.

It doesn't matter that the citizen was a low life treacherous scumbag.  If they had practiced due diligence, dotted their i's and crossed their t's, they would have presented facts in court from at least 2 witnesses and having been found a traitor, Congress could have easily stripped his citizenship and there wouldn't even be a debate constitutionally on the matter.

We citizens are "the people of the United States."

In the U.S. Constitution. it begins by saying, "We the People of the United States,.."

That line right there sets the tone, the language as to whom and for whom the Constitution and furthermore, the Bill of Rights, etc... refers to.

They didn't use "voters" and they didn't use "citizens" because the very first sentence already established that.  We are the people of the United States.

It didn't refer to people of Mexico, it didn't refer to the people of Germany nor to just people in general.  It specified the people of the United States and no one else.

As it enumerates rights, rules, provisions further on in the Constitution and in the amendments to the Constitution, it continues using that same reference, abbreviated to "the people" as it had already been established what people it is referring to.  That's right, the people of the United States.

Is everyone in the world a person of the United States?  Noooo. They have other places in which they  were born that they are a person of.

If they were not born here, to people who were born here or to people who had been legally nationalized, then they are not a person of the united States.  Also, if they have had their citizenship revoked, they are not a person of the united States anymore.

That very first sentence established who is a citizen.  A person of the united States.  Further amendments clarified that further by saying (14th Amendment, Section 1) "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

This is called being taken "in context".To see and understand the pattern and framework of language during the course of the discussion. 

There are those who would try to argue that the Constitution holds vagueries such as "any person" and "no person" in respect to certain rights and/or privileges of the Constitution.  Which of course, is taking the terms out of context.

That argument doesn't hold up though in terms of trying to be all inclusive in respect to people who are not citizens of the United States.  This is because those generalizations are referring frequently, to that first statement of "people of the United States".

For example, in the 14th Amendment, Section 1, it says, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  Because of this, some people want to say that this means that non-citizens are extended this privilege.

However, in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, it states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President..."  If we were to construe that the same way as those who want to extend liberties to non-citizens in the previous example, then in this example, they would insinuate that "no person" would also include non-citizens as well.  Which of course would be ludicrous as it had already been established earlier in the Constitution that only a citizen could hold those positions in the first place.

It then holds up that in the Constitution and Amendments, "people" has been established as a shortened reference to "people of the United States." and a "person", would be a person "of the United States".

People who are not citizens may be extended courtesies, but they are not due rights and privileges reserved for people of the United States.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Sliding away from our self sufficient and independent selves.

To be completely independent, in all sense of the word, we would have to be entirely self sufficient.  Meaning, we would have only what we could grow, kill and make in the region we are in, with the resources available to us.

That's not the ideal of "living good" that most people think of.

It's actually a pretty meager existence.

Trade and barter is actually what made our lives "more" than what they were.

Different people's skills, abilities and the resources available to them where they are make having things we aren't so good at making, or don't have the resources to make, obtainable.

But, with the modicum of trade people had accessible to them, even into the modern commerce world that the train ushered in, people were by and large still mostly self sufficient.

Very few could afford to be more consumer than provider.

We will take note that when most people were more self sufficient, people were more likely to be independent and very much in favor of laws that supported individuals rights, individual freedoms and respect for an individual's right to own property.

In the century or so since then, as people have become more consumer than provider, they have become more dependent on others to provide for them.  This has had a dramatic impact on how people see government and it's role. 

People now want to have more group protections and the individual, the independent minded, the self sufficient and the providers must be cracked down on and forced to give up theirs for the good of the group.

Through all of this, those that are the brokers, the inspectors and authority figures (the government) have gained more power than they have ever had before and they are re-inventing themselves as a separate, ruling class in order to be the nanny, the parent, the arbitrator of goods, services and general conduct of those it provides for.

This is what consumerism and socialism bring.  Dependence and a relegation to a second class citizen.  Where the wealthy and the ruling class work to keep access to authority and government in the reach of only a select few.

Where is the tipping point? Where did the balance truly begin to fall in favor of dependent consumerism and is it too late to tip the scales?

I don't think it's too late.  I do think we are approaching a critical point in the next 20 years that will determine if we start moving back towards independence and self sufficiency or we are hopelessly and irrevocably become something completely opposite what the framers of the Constitution envisioned those many years ago.

I do know that if the latter happens, there will be another civil war in this country making the first civil war seem like a drunken argument.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Hard Core Independent's Manifesto of Independence in America

Everyone has a manifesto these days.  I thought I'd chime in and post my own to describe the "Hard Core Independent's Manifesto of Independence in America"

1)  Each person is born as one person in this world.  No, we are not all fraternal twins and each of us has to live our own lives.  If and when we collaborate by living together as a community, it is as a collection of individuals working together for our collective individual good.

2) The American government is an expression of that collective individual will and as such, is not a separate ruling class or body independent of society but exists at the will of society.  They were intended to carry out the intentions of the collected individuals in this country, not to determine them.

3) The government is tasked to ensure certain things are done, they are not mandated to do all those things themselves.  Where there is a private sector ability to perform those tasks and services, it is the government's duty to supervise and make sure they are being done as the collective will of the voters has determined.

4) Representatives elected by the collective individual voters and the employees of the government are not to live exempt of the laws and structure, but as one and the same, subject to the same laws and structure.

5) A duty to ensure public safety is does NOT give the government representatives or the employees of the government a pass on civil behavior.  We do not exist so they can do their job, they do their job as we allow them to do so.

6)  Your rights end where the next person's rights begin.  The moment you take it upon yourself to violate someone else's rights, you have simultaneously surrendered your own.  Convicted prisoners therefore have no rights until their sentence is completely served.  At which time they will be re-instated with proper release.

7) People seeking to be elected to public office should run on their own platform, independent of any political party.  

8)  Political parties have no place in a government of individual freedoms and respecting free will.

This manifesto reserves the right to be amended and added to as we determine the need.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

"The Buffett Rule" for deceiving yourself

OK, let's see now.

Warren Buffett and now President Obama think millionaires need to have a new tax placed on them.

What will the exemptions and deductions be on that tax?

We know there will be, just as there are on the hundreds of tax acts taken up in the past.

If millionaires (billionaires) like Buffett want to pay more in taxes, it's as simple as not claiming deductions or hiding their money in banks in Sweden or other offshore spots.

Why on earth complicate the system with more tax laws?  Why do we need to have any new law put into place at all when all it requires is some self control and personal discipline?

Because it's all talk, that's why.

Once they successfully add a new tax to millionaires, it's easier to adapt it or add another to include lower income brackets.  They're playing the slippery slope game again and the only ones they are fooling is themselves.

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Offer more incentives to those who meet American values

Here's an idea.  If we want to encourage businesses to offer livable wages and benefits and be willing to cut mega profiteering at the expense of jobs and quality products, why not just offer incentives to those companies who show a significant percentage increase in wages and benefits to employees?

The first thing that could be utilized is business tax cuts.  These then are earned for businesses who offer more to workers.  Companies don't have to do it though.  If they prefer to get by with fewer workers to gain maximum profits because they live for the almighty dollar, let them.  They just won't qualify for the incentives.

It still offers those businesses a choice to run their businesses as they choose to.  But puts into place societal ideals that as a country we want to promote.

It can be done, no good reason it shouldn't be done.  Democrats and republicans won't do it though because they would have to give up their polarizing finger pointing power game and and they could never do that.

Our government, do your job.

With all the talk about the U.S. Postal Service's financial troubles and the suggested possibility of doing away with the U.S.P.S., some in the media are now asking if the post office is still necessary.

Their biggest contention is that private business has filled the gap, thus making the post office irrelevant.

To this,  I respond, why do we have a government at all? Why bother?

My point is that supposedly, the government will "always" be there.  In the private sector, companies come and go.

For most people, "good" government is making sure the trains run on time.  It's all about infrastructure and core functionality.  When all else fails, the things we value as a country are supposed to keep going.  That includes public communications and transfer of goods.

This is the same reason that the government subsidizes Amtrack.  Even when it might not be making a profit, there is a value, a necessity, in ensuring the transportation of people and goods from one part of the country to another.

The same goes for the U.S. Postal Service.  They have a promise to keep.

It is in the U.S.'s best interests to maintain and ensure that mail and parcels are delivered despite what the private sector might be doing to compete with or duplicate those services.

Should services be modified at times to better meet public needs?  Absolutely.  Improving efficiency and streamlining services should always be expected, especially in government operated or subsidized services.

This talk of letting the U.S.P.S. collapse is ridiculous though.  What's the point of having a government if it's not going to do the things we expect it to do?

Our Federal government always seems to have time to stick their nose into things that have nothing to do with the core functionality or or infrastructure services they are supposed to be focusing on.

Social engineering, meddling in the affairs of other countries governments.  The time when we need them to focus on something they should be involved in, they want to consider walking away from it?   I don't think so.

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Who can lead us, Constitutionally?

Let's take a look at the requirements that the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution set in place for future officeholders and representatives.

Section 2 - The House

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Section 3 - The Senate

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Article II - The Executive Branch

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

After reading the above, It is pretty plain to see that one did not have to be "specially trained" in law or otherwise to be elected to representative office.

Yet, our politicians in office first arguments against opponents is as to whether they are "qualified" to take the position in question.

The forefather who wrote this did not intend for a separate class of people, uniquely qualified by ethnicity, income or education to be the sole legislators and office holders of this country.

We have allowed an elitist class of people to develop who do everything in the power to convince us that of their group alone should we select our leadership.

I suggest to you, my fellow Americans, that we stop following and become the leaders, each and every one of us.

Educate ourselves and our children on the Constitution.  Each of us take part in our communities by voting, participating in local government "town hall" meetings and otherwise.

The only thing keeping the "common" man from taking this country back is our own willingness to be mis-lead and shouted down by those who fear losing their protected status, so carefully crafted over years of indoctrination and rhetoric.

We who run family and small businesses successfully.  We understand our rights and the U.S. Constitution.  We have learned from history so that we do not repeat the mistakes that were made and to continue the success achieved.

From our humble ranks can the leaders of this country ascend as independents.

As a person who thinks for them-self, speaks for their community and votes for everyone.

I believe in you, American farmer, grocer, baker, firefighter, construction worker and so on.  Success isn't necessarily measured in the accumulation of dollars.  it is evidenced by the conditions of the people around us that we step up for.  The people we take under our wing.  Our children and neighbors and co-workers alike.  How do they fare on our watch?

If they fare well, then that is success. 

Please everyday American, don't be tricked into thinking that money and high status are the qualifications that are required to be the President or a Congress person.

We can take back our country from those who would hijack it away from us.It takes courage, persistence and a sense of purpose. 

WE can do it.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Independents - Constitutionally Educated and Armed to lead

What the U.S. does not need now is more sheep-like followers and party hacks, blindly calling for the end of rule of the opposite party only so that their chosen idol can take office and pretty much do the same thing as the last person in the name of the party platform.

What we do need is for independent individuals to become educated on constitutional law and government.  People who think for themselves, speak for their community and vote for us all.

Political parties have polarized the population into an "Us vs Them" mentality.  Trying desperately to convince the non-sheep followers that their person will be different from the other parties person. 

When in truth, all either party is doing is trying to pull America toward their party's platform and agenda.  All the while, no real change is affected because that would blow apart the cozy back room deals and corporate support that keeps the millions rolling into campaign treasuries.

No friends and neighbors.  don't let yourself be lulled into thinking that "their" way is the  right way.  for hundreds of years now, the two party system has only become increasingly corrupt and abusive of the people they usurp their authority from.

See the "man behind the curtain" for who he really is.  Realize we as a country are being played for fools every time we fall into step with one or the other of these political machines that have lead our country astray.

Only when we as independent individuals know the Constitution and our rights for ourselves will we ever truly be in control of our government.

The parties have lied to us, deceived us, played us for fools at every turn.

The scandals both parties have mirror each other and grow in scope and depravity each year. Yet they would still have us believe that one of them is "good" and the other is so different, so "bad".  The truth is, neither of them are good.  They are only mirror opposites of each other, yet ultimately, the same thing.

Corrupt.


Thursday, August 11, 2011

Respect the office, watch the office holder like a hawk

I am sooo tired of this faux blind patriotism that partisan drones push on thinking people.

They tell us that in order to really "respect" the office of the president, Congress, supreme court, etc.. that we should stand behind anything and everything they do.

No friends, don't question them or their work because to do so is, gasp ...un-American.

It is our obligation, nay, our duty, to question the actions and behaviors of those people we place into government office by election or appointment as well as everyone those offices employ.

I have said it before and I mean it with utmost sincerity.  Our government and our Constitution are ideals.  These are the ways we want to be as Americans.

We as Americans strive to put our best foot forward, or at least we used to.  That's what our Constitution is all about, not just settling for what we already are, but we know and expect ourselves and others to be.

The office of the President of the United States, members of the House of Representatives and the Senate and our Supreme Court judges as well as every person employed by those offices are expected to be exemplary of those ideals.  to conduct themselves like statesmen.

When we see that these people holding these offices are not conducting themselves in such a manner, when they are abusing the authority and responsibility entrusted to them, we have to call them on it.

They don't get a free pass on bad behavior and compromised ethics just because they won an election or succeeded in appointment.  On the contrary, they are held to even higher scrutiny to see if they will uphold that office and position in the manner the American people expect that office to be carried out as.

The office is more than the individual.  The office is a representation of expectations and ideals of a nation at large.  An individual is imperfect, we know that, but being imperfect is no excuse nor does is it give permission to not make every effort to keep trying one's best to perform up to those expectations.

Our representatives fail us because we have come to expect and tolerate such failure. Instead we should expect, nay demand, as a citizenry in common, that they perform at those idealistic and expected levels.

"No more!" we say, from this moment on.  No more apathy, no more disinterest.  We insist that our representatives do just that, represent, those ideals and values that we have placed in our Constitution, in our representative government and in those offices meant to portray the best our society has to offer.


Sunday, August 7, 2011

Religion and Government.

One of the hot button topics we all hear is the so called "separation of church and state".

While I agree one hundred percent that the government has no business at all telling people what religious or spiritual pursuits they should or should not follow,  I am annoyed by the extremes some people try to take this discussion.

First of all,  I agree with the notion of "freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion". 

Whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not, the reality is that most of the people in the United States of America are some sort of christian.  They have the large majority and that does count for a lot.

One of the greatest things introduced into our Constitution and governmental mind in general is that we do not let the majority run roughshod over the minorities. 

Supposedly, we are supposed to say "Whoa, hey there big guy.  You may have the most votes here, but that doesn't mean you can just do anything you want."

It's good to protect minorities.  What is a minority in this context?  That would be a group of citizens who are not among the larger recognized group of citizens.

That could mean racial minorities.  Like if the population of the United States is 20 million caucasian people and 5 million native americans, the native americans represent fewer votes totally so are considered a minority.

It could mean that 40 million people here are christians and 10 million are other, not christian participants.  Now we have a religious minority.

I expect a lot more things to go the way of the majority of people.  It's the American way.  Majority vote wins.

The thing I count on the Constitution for is that when all the christians want to vote for something along their beliefs, They can't really enforce it on non-christians if it will force a change of religion.

For example, if all the christians organized and wanted to make a law that everyone must attend church on the weekend.  Sorry, can't do that.  The Constitution says they can't force me to do something religious if it conflicts with my own religious beliefs.  if  I don't believe in churches or have a need for them, well, nice try christians, but, not gonna happen.

Does that mean if all the christians want to let everyone have a holiday for a day that has religious meaning to them that I should automatically oppose it? 

Well,  I have to ask myself, am I being forced to observe their religious activity?  No, then what do I care?  Do I have to close my store down to observe their religious day?  No I don't.  Will I get a lot of customers that day?  Probably not, but that's what one expects living somewhere you are outnumbered by christians.

What about Christmas though, isn't that a christian holiday that the government takes  off?  Yes it is, BUT, Christmas has also become a social holiday.  A day that for those not christian, has come to share a lot of the same values.  Regardless of religion, very few people disagree with the idea of peace and goodwill to all and stopping to think of others for just one day. 

I am not a christian.  As long as the Constitution continues to protect me from being forced to do things christian or mandating I become a christian, or are wasting my tax dollars for something specifically doing those things,  I have to live with  and accept the fact that I am in the minority here and be truly glad that our government keeps me from being run flat by the majority

Thursday, August 4, 2011

A new "kickstart"

While the previous posts written under the heading of "American-ated" are things I wanted to share with everyone,  I felt that it limited me in scope to other issues than the "independent" mentality and lifestyle in America.

So, to better express those ideas and notions, we have taken on (I say we because I am expecting to include some new contributors here shortly who share the same passion for being an independent person in America) a new title and expanded beyond politics only posts.

What does it mean to be American and Independent?   I like to say that
an independent is someone who thinks for themself, speaks for their community and votes for all of us.

Obviously, that very directly relates to the electoral process and politics. 


Beyond that though, being an independent means that you don't need, want or expect everyone else to do for you that which you can do for yourself.


You don't want a "nanny" government, be it local, state or federal.  The government should not be in the business of removing incentive and making people participate in bureaucratic hamster wheels in order to be productive and capable citizens.

You don't want corporations trying to sell you tools that you can only get the tool, the repair, the parts, the support, from one place.  This is called "vendor lock-in" and serves to make consumers utterly dependent on the vendor, manufacturer or service provider who is limiting access in this manner.
doesn't need or want to be coerced or forced into corners, don't want to walk a party line and do not 


An American who is independent doesn't need or want to be coerced or forced into corners, doesn't want to walk a party line and does not want to play juvenile games with matters of importance. 

We want open and free markets.  We believe in open and fair competition, not eliminating competition in the courtrooms playing anti-competitive games with a broken and abused patent/copyright law system. 


We believe in open and free speech.  We don't endorse trying to silence others simply because we don't like what they are saying.  No one is forcing us to listen, and if they are, that's another issue and there will be consequences for that.


We believe in having choices available to us.  We don't need or want any one person's or groups approval.  They are free to do as they choose and we expect the same in return.


In short, American independents want to live our lives, the way we choose to live them.  Not the way some power hungry, controlling groups want us to.


Welcome to American and Independent.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

The governments job, part 2

Going back to this discussion for a bit.   I touched before on how  I think it is the government's responsibility to ensure that certain tasks are done.  However, it is not necessarily their job to do the work those tasks require.

For example, NASA is no longer sending shuttles to the international space station.  An estimate of 1.6 billion dollars was tossed out to account for how much 1 trip with the  shuttle costs to do so.

Now a privately owned craft is going to be tested to do the same job. The private carrier can hold maybe half of what the shuttle can carry, but also can make 12 trips for the same price as the one shuttle flight. 

Using the most generic math, that still gives us roughly 6 equal movements from the private shuttle carrying the same amount of freight for what it costs to send one shuttle.

Even if we are even more conservative with our math and say it takes 3 private trips to equal one shuttle trip, it still gives us 3 private transfers to equal the cost of 1 shuttle transfer.  The private ship is still a 300% improvement.

This serves to further exemplify that the government should be contracting the work of the country to private business instead of trying to do it themselves.

Not only can private business do it more cost effectively, more private sector jobs are created, government costs go down, and, if done right, honest competition keeps technology moving forward.

(unless of course you have one of the modern "compete in the courtroom, not in the R&D lab" corporates contracted, then nothing gets better.)

Party Games

They're on a roll now aren't they?

Obama and Boehner going on TV to point fingers and tell the people who bothered to watch them how much the "debt crisis" is the other party's fault based on what they want to do regarding this attempt at a "deal" to raise the debt limit.

Obama stated that it's the Republicans fault if things go bad because they won't stray from idealist positions on this deal.  Boehner says it's the democrats fault for not ponying up enough cuts.

Both are clowns who make the whole country look absurd.

If the U.S. defaults on it's debt, it has less to do with the current round of deal making than it does the previous 10 years or so of un-controlled spending by the government by both parties.

Obama loves to try to distance himself from the current crop of problems as though he has only been involved in government politics since becoming president.  He would dearly love for people to forget he was in congress long enough to vote often to increase spending with everyone else while he was a congressman, making the current problem what it is.

One thing all the political pundits and self proclaimed experts love to do is proclaim how complicated everything is.  That's a boon to them that complexity.  The more complex they can make things seem, the more they can try to justify the necessity of keeping people like them around.


The current round of haggling to get an agreement is not the reason the U.S. will have to default on it's debt if one can't be reached.  That's just a smokescreen to cover the complete incompetence of our elected officials to handle the purse strings responsibly over recent history.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Here we are again

As if we needed any further evidence that a two party system fails the people miserably, we have the debt "crisis" on our hands.

What has the discourse shown us?  That all the two party system can do is point fingers, ignore their own participation in the problem and produce lot's of rhetoric.

Both parties have contributed to over spending equally.  Both parties have engaged in under  the table deals with corporations and billionaire with social agendas.

It is way past time to end partisan politics.

Candidates should run on their own platform and impress Americans on what they can do for everyone, not what they plan to do with and for their party, whether the rest of us like it or not.

Just like the corruptive corporate tax laws that allow people to hide from personal and community responsibilities and obligations, political parties make it easy for candidates to not have to be personally responsible for the laws they propose and vote on to the people at large.

Political parties are nothing more than money raising machines working to indoctrinate people into a singular philosophy and pits folks into an "us vs them" frame of mind.

As we watch the "debt crisis" talks, we see the ridiculousness of how both these parties have failed the American public at large by engaging in shenanigans, cronyism, pork barrel spending and self entitlement.

Neither wants to accept responsibility for the situation yet both have have equal involvement for getting us to this point.

For the betterment of all the people in this country, political parties, just like corporate status, must go.

Oh, and if you plan to give the old "the ends justify the means" arguments to try to justify the presence of either corporations or political parties, that boat doesn't float either.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

What exactly is the governments job

Let's get back to basics.  Fundamental tasks that are crucial to any society that need to be initiated, maintained and secured by a government entity.

From the get go, I just gave the basic tenets of government in that last sentence.

To initiate, maintain and secure....what  on behalf of the people.  Note here that I did not say that it is necessarily the governments job to actually "do" these things, but that it is their task to make sure that it gets done.

I say, first and foremost is infrastructure.  We need transportation, communications, the means of conducting commerce and defense.

Transportation - Rail lines, shipping lanes, airways, roads, waterways, etc...  If it is a means of travel by which cargo and people are transported within this society, it is the governments responsibility to make sure it is built, maintained and secured for ALL citizens.

Communications - By wire, radio signal, satellite signal, or any other means of communicating within the boundaries of this society, it is the governments responsibility to make sure it is built, maintained and secured for ALL citizens.

Conducting commerce -  People within our society need to be able to trade, barter, buy and sell in order to make a living for themselves and their families.  The ability and core tools for doing so should be one of the the governments main concerns and it is the governments responsibility to make sure it is built, maintained and secured for ALL citizens.

Defense - I should think this is pretty obvious, but look what happens when we let the government think for itself.  First and foremost, it is the physical borders and property within that must be defended at all times against any invader.  Up to and including those that would come from within.  Our military and defense mechanisms have absolutely no business whatsoever intervening in the affairs of other countries except to repel attacks from them upon our land or citizenry.

Of course,  I am an independent.   I believe without a doubt that political parties are detrimental, if not actually treacherous, to the governing of this country.  Our elected officials should not be beholden to ANY group or party that does not have the interests of every American or state citizen or local citizen at their forefront.

I believe that partisan politics has disrupted the ability of the government from effectively doing it's job and focusing on these core responsibilities.






We need to get back on task and focus on the core needs of this country.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Is it "American" to Celebrate Independence Day?

Now obviously, most intelligent people are going to look at a question like that and say "What a stupid question.."  and in most cases,  I would agree with them.

The real question here has more to do with how one celebrates Independence Day.

There are those who say that the typical cookout/picnic and lighting off of sometimes hundreds and thousands of dollars of fireworks is not what Independence Day is all about.

Some would suggest a somber reading of the Declaration of Independence and/or the U.S. Constitution would be more fitting.  They might be right.

Some might suggest that a moment of silence or even a group "prayer" would be appropriate to remember the soldiers and others spanning from the "Founding Fathers (and Mothers) to those on the forefront today.

I am here to suggest that the picnic and fireworks, regardless of how over-blown and gaudy, really are the "reason for the season".

Every time American citizens feel safe enough and confident enough to go out in public and be relaxed, argue about the latest nonsense in local, state and federal government, give the kids some sparklers and such.  All of these thing are truly special things that are worth celebrating.

My friends, the very fact that we feel comfortable enough that terrorists aren't going to stop us from hanging our flags out in public and making a noisy display of ourselves, that is a "real" celebration of independence.

Every time we don't even have to think about what if some local bureaucrat wanted what we had and just showed up with police or soldiers to take it, we are celebrating independence.

Any time Uncle Whoever can knock back a six pack and stand up to tell the whole world what he thinks of some politician or government policy without worrying about being dragged off immediately or in the middle of the night sometime soon because of it, we are indeed celebrating independence.

Certainly, we have more somber, grandiose ways we could be celebrating our independence. Those are just as fine and expected too.

True independence, real independence, is in the little things.  

It's in the ability to wear your politics on your sleeve if you want to.

It's in the off the cuff decision we make to make that last minute stop at the fireworks stand and spend an extra twenty bucks for the cookout that night.

It's in the ability to even feel safe enough, secure enough to have a cookout that night.

It's in the not even thinking about things like not being able to have a cookout because of gestapos or terrorists or strict authoritarian laws.

We do those things because we are free to do so.

We celebrate because we can.

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Congressional Term Limits

There has been a specter of introducing congressional term limits for a long time now.

The primary driving factor in favor of them is to limit the amount of time a sitting politician has to accrue standing and status among other long term cronies and lobbyists.

Those against installing term limits say the the voting process is a form of term limits itself and if people participated in an educated and responsible manner, the point would be moot.

Normally,  I would be in the against camp, because there is very much an issue of citizens not participating or voting no on intelligent choice but rather simply along party lines, or other means of emotion based motivation.

One of the reasons Congress enacted a term limit on the presidency of the United States is that, largely in part to party politicking, the organization and pressure that political "machines" can exert on the public can be substantial.

It is because of the same reasons of political "machining" is embedded into the congressional races that I say the voting system has become compromised and even with larger numbers of voters participating, the "machines" will have too much sway over the process.

While personally, my suggestion is to abolish political parties and let everyone run as an independent,  I doubt that the parties in existence will give up the power they have now in the best interest of serving the people.

Similarly, though  I think the next best thing is to install congressional term limits,  That will never be voted in either.  Also due to those in power will never willingly relinquish that power.  Just as we can kiss goodbye the notion of congress voting against the Congressional pay increases, separate health care system and private perks they have given themselves to create a separate "ruling class" that does not have to live by the laws it imposes on everyone else.

The best method we have to force this on congress would be to mount a grassroots public campaign to vote out every elected member of congress after only one term every time until a term limit is put in place.

Once the term limit is in place, we are still not out of the dark entirely.  The same potential for abuse of the system exists because they feel a smaller window to push for party agenda issues will make them feel it more critical to be deceptive and evasive.

This could only really be avoided by eliminating party politics altogether.

Wish in one hand and spit in the other, see which one fills up first.

Thursday, March 31, 2011

The Slippery Slope is Already in Place.

Arizona is is the news again for another law they passed.

This one is to make it illegal to perform an abortion based on the fetus's race or gender.

Meaning, if the parent(s) don't want the baby because it's a girl or the girl is being encouraged by her parents to have the abortion because it's part part Native American or otherwise, that is illegal.

Surprisingly, that makes sense.  Not surprising in terms of preventing such discrimination, but in applying it legally to abortion.

First of all, to those people who don't think abortions should be regulated, you are also very often the same group of people who argue against 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms and push to heavily regulate that.

Prematurely ending a life is right up there in scale of importance, if not more so, than arms and  I don't think any sane person would question the need to regulate it so that it can be an option in life threatening and critical situations as well as making sure it's not done frivolously or with malice.

The slippery slope I describe is in action because Americans have already begun the practice of "regulating" Constitutional freedoms. On top of that, there are already products and practices available to people to reduce and prevent unwanted pregnancies. 

To say you forgot or didn't have access to said methods is hogwash because it is a publicly funded effort to make these methods available at little to no cost.

If you claim to not know or not be able to access, you simply made no effort whatsoever.

At which point, to not have acted to prevent a pregnancy, you have essentially consented to accept a pregnancy.

The exception being that if one can show, with evidence, that one did take medications and use methods intending to prevent pregnancy AND pregnancy occurred anyway AND it would create a critical or otherwise un-safe situation to parent and/or child  then an abortion could be considered.

Monday, March 21, 2011

Heading into dangerous waters

Now, bear in mind,  I am a self proclaimed isolationist.  If it were up to me, The U.S. armed forces would be nowhere in the world that wasn't a direct and present threat to national security in geographical terms.

Have we been seeing reports that our military is actively participating in the intercession of another, sovereign nation's activities?

It's pretty convenient the pro participation camp says that "we" simply must stand up to tyrants who would mow down their own citizens in cold blood, yet those same advocates have stood silent and idly by while the exact same thing is happening in several other countries.

What makes Libya more deserving of our intervention than those other countries?  I suspect, Libya has more oil clout than they do.  But hey, only George Bush and the Republicans think that way right?  not the democratic, liberal millionaires who own plenty of oil stocks just as well as the republicans do.

Sorry, both parties are pretty equally crooks, this only demonstrates it's the choice of victims and weapons that differ.

It's been bandied about on several "respectable" media sites online and in the print and television media that the president did not officially obtain congressional support or "permission" to engage American troops in battle with another sovereign country that posed no direct threat to our security.

People say that Bush lied to obtain permission to get into Iraq and the voting record is clear that he didn't need to convince anyone to go to Afghanistan, they were behind it all the way.  But you notice, whether accused of lying or not, he went to congress for the word.

I see no record of vote by congress to do similar in Libya even though it is American efforts that have been overwhelmingly been used to attack Libyan targets.

We are entering dangerous time and I am not just talking about wars with other countries.

That the president is not seeking the Constitutionally required approval of Congress to engage in military action against another sovereign nation and the abuse of the executive order, we are witnessing something that is fast approaching a takeover of the American government by the president.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

How the U.S. created the problem it has with illegal immigration

It made immigration illegal.  Simple as that.

Look at it this way, if someone crosses onto your property, whether you have a fence or not, is it illegal for them to do so without being invited first to step into your yard?  Technically, no, it isn't.

Without barriers clearly indicating that other means of procuring entry are required, it is considered reasonable for people to bee able to get the attention of the property owner to be there.  Such as walking up to the front door and knocking or ringing the doorbell.

If you tell them to go away, get off your property, they have what is considered "reasonable time" to get out, but get out they must.  Permission asked, permission denied, end of story.

The problem is, there is no barrier in most places at the U.S . property line and there is no front door, doorbell or intercom to request entry.

Not only that, the law was revised so that simply showing up, taking that one step over the property line, instantly makes you a criminal, regardless of intent.

Now, if the law doesn't work that way within our borders, why was it made to be so at our borders?  Not very practical or sensible in my opinion.

What do I suggest to remedy this problem?

Install a doorway for them to knock on.  Give them places they can walk up, knock on the door and ask permission to be there without it making them a criminal for just showing up.

There are already a number of Border patrol buildings scattered along the border, why not modify those, and add a few more strategically placed ones, to include immigration offices there as well.

Now if they are refused entry and still continue on, they can be considered beyond a shadow of a doubt as trespassing and having committed illegal entry.

Technology would allow cameras to be mounted taking photos of people as they approach the buildings, giving officers immediate means of identification.  if they are refused, those photos can be accessed via ICE in the arrest and deportation of those people here illegally.

What of those who never showed up to the immigration buildings and had their photo taken?  Grandfather them and give them a chance to go back and ask.  If they are refused, bye bye.  Put them on the bus ride back across the border, and now we have a pic ready in the future.

After about 4 years of giving people a chance to knock on the door after the fact, anyone caught without a photo is to be considered illegal. Period.

We discussed earlier what the Constitution says about birthright citizenship and who it applies to.  Going about the process this way can bring a lot more clarity to who that applies to.

Friday, February 18, 2011

The Government and Jobs

It's almost incredulous to see the news reports about politicians trying to make cuts to state and federal budgets and unions and others complaining about jobs being cut as a result.

It's a situation that was created by an over-ambitious government to begin with many years ago.  What's worse is that had they followed practical advice given to them prior to enlarging government hiring, they wouldn't have the troubles they are having now.

The governments job is to make sure things happen.  To make sure things, rights, freedoms, laws are adhered to, enforced, etc...

It is not the governments job to "do" those jobs related to those duties though, only to see that they happen.

Instead of taking jobs away from the public sector, where they belong, the government starting hiring extra people to do those jobs itself.

When the government should have been contracting with private business to get things done, they instead made those jobs government jobs.  Why, because it gives them more control over the details.

The nasty secret that's not a secret here is that government has an annoying tendency to become a micro-manager.

Employees of private businesses have a better chance of keeping their jobs when government has to pare down it's budget because the workload that was contracted by the government could potentially be replaced by new or increased contracts with other clients.

With the government being the employer, it just leads to guaranteed job losses.

Which, by the way, will add to the un-employment numbers.

In a socialist/communist country, even an imperialistic or monarchy government, government employment and micro-management is a better fit.  Maybe not more successful, but at least micro-management fits the model.

The U.S. is a democratic republic.    It is probably the farthest thing from "needing" governmental micro-management as you can get.

Our government is supposed to be one that is "by the people, of the people, for the people.  The argument that the bureaucracy of the government and being an employee of the government fits that is ludicrous. "The people" are the private citizens living in this country, not the people that are elected to represent us and their employees.  This is particularly relevant to the "by the people" portion of that ideology.

The government, federal, state and local, should be contracting every job and task it can to private businesses.  Yes, there are some tasks, especially where security, law enforcement and sensitive information are concerned that should be done by government depts.  Those should be the relative minority though.

Our governments and politicians made this bed many years ago when they decided they wanted to "do" things for the people instead of only making sure that things were being done.  Now it faces the reality of admitting they bit off more than they can chew and instead of making things better over time, they have gotten worse.

In terms of Republican or Democrat agendas and positions, as far as I am concerned they are both equally repugnant and exist only to serve their own agendas as opposed to meeting the needs of ALL Americans.  They are ridiculous, petty and self-serving.  Both parties have used the government and it's agencies which employ to further their own power grubbing agendas and have only made things the way they  are.  Worse.

There was a time when politicians were seen as "statesmen" which meant they could be counted on as generally being trustworthy and would not succumb to being bought out or using their positions to blatantly further their personal agendas.  Their dedication to the country as a whole exceeded their personal ambitions.

We are sorely lacking those kinds of people in government today.

Friday, January 14, 2011

Citizenship and the 14th Amendment, Cut and Dried

I came across an article that I think breaks down the 14th Amendment very clearly and brings some well done research to the table regarding citizenship of people born to citizens of foreign countries.

Hans A. von Spakovsky wrote on FOX new online (No,  I am not an adamant fan of FOX news, but they are one of many news sources I browse through to pull together many sides of the same story.   I call it seeking corroboration and it's something everyone should look for instead of taking one reporter or politician or scientists version un-questioned.) that discusses the history and specific wording of the 14th Amendment.  


In part, he has this to say...


The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship. 
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual. The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens. Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country. 

 We have many people these days crying that enforcing the 14th Amendment is an act of racism.  That trying to prevent the children born inside the U.S. political and geographical borders of foreign parents is racism.

Sorry, couldn't be further from the truth.  What's really going on is how people want to play with the definition of the word "jurisdiction".

The people who oppose the 14th are those who want to only define jurisdiction similar to the notion of "when in Rome, do as Romans do", meaning that when you are in a given country, you are expected to abide by their laws while you are there.

That is a "local" interpretation or definition of jurisdiction.  However, in the context of what is actually written in the 14th Amendment, "jurisdiction" is the citizenship and national allegiance to which the individual is bound by.

In the case of the U.S., "automatic citizenship" is extended only to the children of natural-born citizens and those naturalized to this country.

Basically, when someone from another country crosses into the U.S. without obtaining prior permission, they are trespassing on a federal level.

Any child born to it's parents, regardless of geographical or political location, are subject to the same allegiances and national jurisdiction as that child's parents.

Think of it this way, if someone visiting the U.S. from another country on a travel or work VISA stayed too long and their child was born inside the U.S. and the federal gov't told the parents they had to go but the child had to stay because it was a citizen of the U.S. now and as such had to stay here, those parents would claim the U.S. was kidnapping their child, especially if those parents had the intention of returning to their own country from the beginning.

No, if someone from Mexico or Germany or Africa or wherever comes to the U.S. without legal prior permission, their child born in the U.S. is NOT automatically a U.S. citizen according to the 14th Amendment.

Think about it.  That would be like saying if some strangers broke into your house, or were lost and stumbled into your backyard and they had their kid there, that kid would be a resident of your house.  Ridiculous, isn't it?

I can see how selective enforcement of the 14th Amendment could be seen as racist.  If say, anyone from a European country, even if illegal had a kid that was allowed to be a citizen automatically but when people from say, Turkey, had a kid in the U.S., it was denied without even thinking about it.  That could be grounds for racism.  And that is the problem the U.S. gov't has created for itself.  It wants to be picky about who it allows to sidestep the law for and who it wants to uphold the law for.

Bringing it down to the plain and simple, the U.S. Constitution.

If you are a citizen, natural born or naturalized, your children are automatically citizens as well.

If you are not a citizen of the U.S., then neither you or your children who are born here are automatically U.S. citizens.  You "belong" to the country of legal citizenship of the parents from which they came.

If you came here without legal prior permission, you are guilty of trespassing on a national level.  That is considered a crime and will get you sent back to where you came from.  End of story.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

On Ownership

Now, this topic isn't so much on constitutional issues as much as it it is on general principles.

Very often, the discussion of capitalism vs social or communism rears it's head.  One of the most fundamental arguments in this discussion is ownership.

Those who criticize capitalism say that no one person "owns" land.  Land being one of the most basic needs of people to establish security, shelter and resources.

They say that land should belong to the community as a whole.

Of course, the pro-capitalists say that it is the right of the individual to own not only those things they make or buy but the land they build on and use for those things as well.  Everything is for sale, in other words and everything can be bought and owned by an individual.  Up to and including land.

If we accept that humans are primarily social animals or beings, then it's easy to take that a step further and suggest that what is owned by one is owned by all.  Much like the honey bee colony, honey bees being considered a social insect. All labor and fruits of said labor is available to all.  Regardless of quantity or quality of labor invested by the individual.

Of course, this perspective almost completely eliminates recognition of the individual.  Much like the "Borg" from the science fiction television show, "Star Trek".  Taking "All for one and one for all" to it's most extreme.

However, if we look at humans as primarily solitary beings, then what one does or has is entirely their own.  Much like the solitary bees.  Everything they do is for themselves and for perpetuation of their "line".  I have what  I have and you have what you have and let our paths not intertwine.

This is not totally accurate either.  Humans are indeed made to be somewhat social as it requires at least two of us to procreate.  One from each gender.  As a matter of fact, one might infer that starting with the basics of one man  and one woman, a small community is created.  This of course being what we call a family.  As genetics have taught us, brothers and sisters do not make good biological pairings in procreation. 

Therefore, we as people need to have access to other "families" to procreate with without becoming inbred and experiencing genetic failure, eventually leading to offspring that may likely not be able to procreate further down the line, thus eliminating that particular line of people.  This essentially creates communities of interaction so as to have at least minimal access to others for healthy procreation.

What has all of that to do with ownership?  Well, it gives some credibility to the notion that humans are to some degree inherently social beings, as necessitated by biology.

However, this necessary socialization is limited to biology.  An individual can hunt and scavenge to keep them-self alive.  A community is not absolutely required for survival as it is within the bees nest.  Historically speaking, it is the small, family based groupings that tend to be most successful in terms of sharing labor and splitting the rewards more equally and equitably.

Competition for resources is what generally, historically, has produced conflict.  Not only among humans, but among animals as well.  it is not uncommon for one to assess that as an animal, humans are territorial, much like bears, lions, wolves, etc...  They are prone to staking out an geographically defined area as theirs to "work".

It is of particular interest that most other territorial animals are also small social (family) based.

With a limited population to cover a large area, conflict is limited as there are more than enough resources and space for each "family" to lay claim to.  By placing more people on limited resources, conflict is created.  Therin lies are problem.


Territorial animals, when in conflict with another of their kind will often fight and kill each other over said territory and resources.  Humans do this too.


However, humans having supposedly "advanced" capacity for thought and awareness of the world around them are supposedly striving for 'civilization" among themselves.  Essentially, establishing ground rules of expected behavior and conflict resolution that interrupts fighting and killing in preference of intellectual resolution instead.


Said "civilization" only works if everyone involved "buys in" to the ground rules.  This is where the idea of challenging ownership comes in.  Using rules of civilization to determine the ownership or transfer of ownership from one individual or group relative to another.

The social or communal oriented thinker will stand up in the group and say that no one "owns" the land and that it is only "loaned" or recognized as loaned by the community to the individual.


The individualists will argue on the basis of what one does to "work" the land or area.  Even if the land is not permanently able to be "owned" over long periods of time (limited by the lifespan of the individual) the investment of time and labor to produce crops, erect buildings, care for one's belongings and keep one's family within the bounds of the "family territory" and not infringing on others is a valid stake or claim on the land in favor of individual ownership.


Personally, I lean toward the individual owned or claimed territory.  If I and my family do the work and do not infringe on others right to live their lives similarly, the "contract" of ownership is between me and the maker of the land in question.  Be that God or nature.  It is not something bequeathed by people or civilization.


However,  I also think that another law of the wild should be observed which is that one's territory is "owned" only as long as one can protect and "work it".  Limiting how much land one person can own to the amount that one person or family can maintain and protect it will limit greed and corruption. 


Right now, there are people who own much more land than they can actually "work" and protect yet their claims on multiple sections of land keep people who could work and protect them, off of them.  This is an error made by civilization.


If someone has land they own, it is theirs until they die or leave.  In which case, it is passed on to an offspring.  If there is no offspring capable of living on it actively, it should be sold to someone with no other existing land holdings.  That should be the extent of civilization's involvement, in my opinion.


The government, the organized perpetrator of civilization, should not be allowed to force the removal of a person from their land.  As it stands currently, the government can force the liquidation of property, including land, for not paying taxes and other excuses.   I think this is wrong. 

First of all, taxation is something that is supposed to be equitably distributed. We can't say equally because of the noted exceptions for those not having to pay taxes.  However, taxation is supposed to provide for the administration of the government to provide the services they are chartered to provide and nothing more.

Governmental representatives are fulfilling a voluntary and civic duty by running for election.  They do not "need" to be compensated for said service as it usually should be able to be fit into one's daily life.  If it is a task that interrupts one's daily life and their ability to provide normally for themselves, some minimal degree of re-compensation can be provided.  Any direct costs to said duty and tasks of the office elected to are covered by those taxes.

However, taxation has increased by non-necessary governmental spending and as such, has placed too large of a burden on the ability of people to provide for themselves and their family.  Thus leading to governmental forcing of people to sell their land based on non payment of un-necessary taxation.

The government should not be allowed to force the sale of land for payment of taxes.there are many other ways to collect that money without forcing someone to sell their land.  By allowing this, it is implied that the government owns the land and can take possession of it at their whim instead of recognizing that the land is owned only by God or nature.

I believe that land ownership is a god given right as declared in "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

The first and second article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776 and written by George Mason, is:
That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
From the very beginning, the crafters of independence understood what it meant to own land.

In the actual declaration of independence, it was stated a bit differently as:

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.
What happened to land and property?  It is commented by some that Franklin, Jefferson and others interpreted property to be a machination of civilization. Therefore subject to taxation.  Taxation.  What was originally meant to be a regard for recognizing the basic needs of people was changed to accommodate taxation.

Now those are only words which provide direction to thought and principle, not actual law.

One of the many games played by politicians over the years since the Constitution was put in place is that by creating amendments to the Constitution, references and laws affecting ownership, taxes and governmental powers are scattered all over and to some extent, buried or "hidden" so that it isn't always easy to decipher relationships and continuity.  That's not an accident.