Declaration of Independence, Revisited 2008

Each July 4th, these United States of America celebrates its independence from Great Britain with flag raisings, fireworks, barbeques, and parades. It is a time for family, fun, cherry pie in George, and a moment of remembrance, just a brief pause to ponder the Declaration of Independence before the distractions of the day. Mostly we think about the Introduction—“When in the Course of Human Events…” or the Preamble—“We hold these truths to be self-evident…” But rarely do we consider the causes, why it was necessary to “dissolve the political bands which have connected” one people to another.
The King is listed as the culprit, but by extension it included Parliament as well. After discussing the attempt to establish “an absolute Tyranny” over the colonies by making mandatory his assent to any laws that were passed before they could be enforced, then withholding that assent, the Founding Fathers enumerated some specific reasons for overthrowing the status quo and establishing a new government. This was done by unelected or corruptly elected representatives chosen by the King, who then passed the king’s agenda into laws not considered valid by the people in the colonies.
The colonies were effectively under martial law and the People were forced to house the military in their homes. These troops had immunity from prosecution in the civil courts for any crimes they might commit while in the Colonies.
The colonies were off from any international trade by the British navy.
Taxes were imposed without the consent of the governed.
Colonists were deprived of a jury trial, and defendants were often sent to England to stand trial.
Canada had been placed under absolute rule, abolishing English Common Law, with an appointed government and a land grab to enlarge British jurisdiction. The colonists feared this would be the pattern the King would follow in America. Rightfully so, since the King had taken away Colonial charters, abolished their laws and altered their form of government by suspending the lawfully elected legislatures and replacing them with puppet legislatures. The Colonies were declared “outlaw” and the King commenced warring against them by plundering the seas, ravaging the coastal communities, burned towns, and destroyed people’s lives. Mercenaries were being transported to America to complete the task of subjecting the colonists to the King. Sailors were kidnapped from ships at sea and forced to bear Arms against their fellow countrymen. Civil disturbances were instigated by the King’s agents, and some native tribes were encouraged to attack outlying settlements.
The colonist’s response had been one of patient resolve to solve the problems through diplomatic and political means. In their own words “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
What would life have been like without the American Revolution? What would the world have been like? What will it be like if we lose our Constitutional bearings and the Bill of Rights? At this time of year, and in this unprecedented election year, we should consider these questions most carefully as we decide the fate of our Nation. Who is the most constitutionally correct candidate before us? Which piece of legislation, which referendum, or which initiative is the most constitutionally correct? Blood was spilt, lives lost, fortunes spent, and families were destroyed over these issues. Respect and reverence demands that we spend time to learn what we have been given and to act accordingly when a choice is placed before us. Happy Fourth of July!

Caucuses and Primaries, part two

12 February 2008

On 9 February 2008, I attended the Republican caucuses in Quincy. I was disappointed at the number of attendees. However, the meeting was a fair and free forum for discussion of issues and candidates. There was no oath administered, no were the doors locked, as I had been led to expect. I would encourage everyone who has a vote to attend a caucus at least once in their life and become a part of the delgate process. The precinct level is the grassroots level, and is the place where most people can find expression and acceptance in the political process.
On a less than favorable note, the oaths mentioned in the previous Caucuses and Primaries article are printed on the envelope in which Grant Countians must return their Primary mail-in ballots. There are only two choices--Democrat and Republican, and one or the other box must be checked in order for the presidential vote to count. The Grant County Auditor's office says that these oaths are for housekeeping purposes only, to confirm that the person determined to vote Democrat or Republican. It leaves the impression that your vote will not be counted unless one or the other box is checked, even though there is a third ballot enclosed, that of levies, etc. only, and that only MEMBERS of the Republican Party can vote. It is impossible to verify one's stance in a given party, or at least it should be, as I believe the ballot is considered sacroscant in this nation, that is, private and personal in law and practice.
I believe that the election system in the state of Washington is potentially flawed. There seems to be little standardization of vote tallies, as evident in the Huckabee controversy currently before the State, and in the last gubernatorial contest. There is little accountability in the mail-in system and in the traditonal ballot box that is still available at City Halls in Grant County on Election Day. In order for a Constitutional Republic to accurately represent the will of the people it serves, it must accurately account for the vote of the those people, with a secure and secret ballot.

Caucuses and Primaries

31 January 2008

Listening to all the media coverage of the ongoing caucuses and primaries caused me to wonder: what is a caucus, what is a primary, and what is their importance to the election process.
The first definition of a caucus in the American Heritage dictionary is, “a meeting of the local members of a political party especially to select delegates to a convention or register preferences for candidates running for office.” So it is a members only way of selecting delegates for the convention of a particular political party. In Washington State, members of the Republican party are required to take an oath—“I declare that I am a member of the Republican party and I have not participated and will not participate in the 2008 precinct caucus or convention system of any other part”, after which they are sequestered in a meeting to choose their delegates. Members of the Democratic party take a similar oath—“I declare that I consider myself to be a Democrat and I will not participate in the nomination process of any other political party for the 2008 Presidential election,” and are likewise sequestered. Since they are private organizations this is a perfectly justifiable method of choosing delegates for their private conventions.
The American Heritage dictionary defines a direct primary as “a preliminary election in which a party's candidates for public office are nominated by direct vote of the people.” In the case of a primary, the people’s vote determines the candidates for each party. It is my understanding that the Republican Party will be assigning 51% of their delegate votes on the basis of the primary this year. The Democrat Party will not use the primary results for assigning any of their delegate votes
I have no problem with a private organization choosing who should represent it. If that is so, then we only need a caucus system. Under the original American system of a constitutional republic, it is the sovereign independent citizen that chooses his or her representatives. The current democratic system, which we have fallen into, subjects us to the political agendas of special interest groups and corporate sponsorship of candidates, denying the individual any true voice in the process, resulting in an election season that is little more than a popularity contest based on each candidate vying to say the loudest “ask not what you can do for yourselves but what I can do for you.” We are deceived and comforted by the idea that Big Brother is watching out for us and cares what happens to us, all the while we are being manipulated into doing what is good for those who want to stay in power, not what is lawful or based upon principles of true government. Horatio Seymour said that "the merit of our Constitution was, not that it promotes democracy, but checks it."
In Washington State, the primary system has become little more that an unofficial caucus. Instead of an open election, where the individual chooses who he or she thinks best represents them, we must choose a party and can only vote for that party’s candidates. Or we can be independent and vote for other candidates other that the two major parties. My question is this—why do we have both methods? Do the people choose in open election, or do parties choose in private meetings? What about third parties? Does this system work to open up the “free marketplace of ideas” or does it suppress true political freedom? The answer comes back to Power, and staying in Power, at the cost of destroying the very Constitution that guarantees freedom to choose. It is interesting that the United States Constitution does not mention political parties. Period. They are not a necessary part of choosing representatives. We do not need them.
What can you do to fix the problem? Ask your state legislators to begin working on restoring the open primary process. Vote in every election. Vote according to your conscience not your fear, not for party affiliation. Research what a candidate believes is the proper role of government and vote accordingly. Write letters to the editors of your local newspapers. Talk to everyone you know about the importance of being a part of the constitutional process of choosing representatives. Educate yourself on what is constitutional and what is not. It is time for the sovereign citizen of the United States of America to take back the God-given right to choose his or her own representatives, not a party representative.

2007 November Elections

NOVEMBER BALLOT ISSUES

While reading my Voter’s Pamphlet for the November 2007 election, I became curious about a few things. I noticed there are four proposed amendments to the Washington State Constitution, one initiative, and one referendum. What is an amendment and what does it mean? What is an initiative and what is a referendum?
An amendment to the constitution is an additional rule that alters, changes, or improves an existing document and must be followed when any future decisions are considered by legislators or regulatory agencies in the state of Washington.
An initiative is a piece of legislation that comes from the people through the petition process. Enough people must have signed a petition indicating a concern about a particular issue in order for an initiative to be placed on the ballot.
A referendum is a piece of legislation passed by the legislators but referred to the people of Washington for their approval or disapproval.
Now that these questions were answered I downloaded and read the documents in question and this is my opinion of what I found.
Engrossed Substitute Senate Joint Resolution 8206 is a referendum that would mandate the establishment of a budget stabilization account but the moneys could be withdrawn for almost any reason subject to the approval of a favorable majority of the legislature. It seems they are trying to devise a plan to stop spending every last penny in the budget while still spending wherever they want. Social Security was supposed to be a safety net as well.
Senate Joint Resolution 8212 is a referendum that would give government the power to provide contract labor from the prison system to corporations, forcing law-abiding citizens to compete against a captive labor force. It seems to be a prison labor system similar to that in China, which has been criticized for severely undercutting the labor markets in the United States. The case could be made that this is slave labor, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution. It opens the door to corruption as corporations vie for lucrative contracts. Do we need this?
Engrossed House Joint Resolution 4204 is a referendum that would mandate by law that a simple majority could raise tax levies for school districts. Why? If a school district is not performing well enough with what it has, why should 51% of the people be able to force 49% to pay for something they cannot in good conscience support? If there is not a clear majority of people approving money taken by force from them then we are no better off than we were under King George just before the American Revolution. This is what the Founding Fathers referred to as “the excesses of democracy” and why democracies tend to implode.
Substitute House Joint Resolution 4215 is a referendum that would allow the investment of higher education permanent funds in stocks and bonds as permitted and authorized by law. My first thought was—and if the stock market crashes? Is that any better than playing the odds in Las Vegas. Who would determine which corporations get the investment? Would it be the largest campaign contributor?
Initiative Measure 960 would require two-thirds legislative approval or voter approval for tax increases, legislative approval of fee increases, certain published information on tax-increasing bills, and advisory votes on taxes enacted without voter approval. This provides a check on those who think the public coffers are their personal bank account.
Referendum Measure 67 attempts to correct problems within the insurance industry by making it unlawful to unreasonably deny claims, to permit treble damages, and attorney fees to be paid by the defendant company. Sounds good? Read the fine print. Some health insurance carriers would be exempt. What’s up with that and who determines what is unreasonable?
Sandra Hodges, Quincy Valley resident put it like this—“ Looking at this as a whole I see that, given a chance, some segments of government would start a savings account (aka budget stabilization account) with money that isn’t theirs, from a budget they can’t balance, to do some undetermined project with. Next they would promise that they are getting tough on insurance companies while favoring those that donate to their campaign fund. Then they would appoint themselves stockbroker for my child’s college fund. They would make it easier to reach into my “Hip National Bank” to fund “Free Public Education” and, if that is not enough, create Gulags for newly defined criminals such as myself who get tired of this nonsense and voice my opinion too loudly. At least I would have a job!”
In a democratic republic as guaranteed us through the federal Constitution we are responsible for our government. If you don’t like it, change it. Whatever your decision is, vote.

CONSTITUTION DAY, Have You Heard About It?

17 September 2007 is Constitution Day. It is the 220th anniversary of the ratification of the United States Constitution. Hopefully, this will be commemorated in our schools and our children will be taught the basic principles of our founding document. How much do we remember? I will save the Preamble and the Bill of Rights for another day. So let’s begin at the very beginning…

The First Article - Each of us is born into the world as a sovereign, independent being with certain rights simply because we are. Ask any two-year old who is loudly asserting that independence. So this Article concerns itself with setting for the rules by which the independent person is represented in the law making body – the House of Representatives. Secondly, it recognizes that States are nothing more than a gathering of independent persons within in a geographically defined area and that this group has common interests and goals that must be represented and so a Senate is formed.
The Second Article – The interests of the individual and the interests of a State may sometimes be at odds with one another, so an Executive is needed to coordinate, suggest, organize, and represent the United States in its relationship with foreign nations. We call him “The President”.
The Third Article – Because Man is a fallible being subject to pride, greed, etc. Legislation might be passed that infringed upon the natural rights of other Men. So a system of judges was established so that any who feel such infringement might appeal to a neutral body which could then decide if a law violated or upheld a right. It has no power to create rights. It can only protect them.
The Fourth Article – Here we find the principles that govern relationships between the States and the rules for becoming a State.
The Fifth Article – Recognizing that the Founding Fathers might not have forseen all future possibilities, an Amendment process is established by which changes may be made to the existing document, with specific limitations.
The Sixth Article – This Article addresses the existing debt of the previous colonial period government, sets the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, requires that Senators, Representatives, members of the State Legislatures, including all executive and judicial officers (both State and Federal) to be bound by an oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution, and that NO RELIGIOUS TEST be ever required to hold an office or public trust under the United States.
The Seventh Article – Establishes the ratification process.

The whole Constitution fits on one large parchment document in the National Archives. It takes up eighteen pages in my pocketbook edition. It is easy to read. It is only the minds of designing Persons that manipulates it into something it is not. It is the best balance between the Natural Rights of Individuals and the government force unleashed to protect those rights. It is not a mandate to solve all spiritual, social, economic, and political woes. It is not a mandate to police the world or subdue naughty nations just because we are bigger or wealthier than anyone else. It is a mandate to respect each person in his or her sphere of life without interfering with the life, liberty, or property of anyone else. Get a copy at the library or online. Read it and enjoy! In this long, extended election season, I have only heard one candidate who speaks of restoring Constitutional integrity to our government. Can you name him?

Education Should Be Local, Not Federal

This was written in reponse to letter to the editor of the Quincy Valley Post Register.

I want to thank Victor Didra for his bold and passionate assessment of the state of American education in the 26 July 2007 edition of the Quincy Valley Post-Register. As the mother of six, grandmother of ten, the education of children is a priority for me. We have lived in California, Virginia, Colorado, Japan, and Washington. We have experienced public, private, and home schools. We have experienced schooling in small logging and farming communities, in cities such as Los Angeles and Denver, in military and civilian environments. One son and his wife are teachers in Idaho. Other family members and friends have been or currently are teachers. I have worked as an Instructional Assistant, parent volunteer, accreditation committee member, etc. Once I believed that there needed to be a basic unified curriculum that the more transient among us could count on, that would meet the needs of all children but I was wrong. The more unification and federalization, the less freedom good teachers have in the classroom to meet the needs of their individual students, the less time for “practical education” as Victor puts it.
The United States Constitution makes no provision for federalized education. The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In other words, the first step towards improving American education is to abolish the federal Department of Education.
The Washington State Constitution provides for a uniform system of public schools under Article IX, most of which was enacted after 1965, twelve years after the federal Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was established through the presidential reorganization authority (which power was never granted by Congress and has since been removed, but the Department remains and is now known as the Education Department).
Article XXVI, Compact with the United States, includes Washington State’s first federal mandate that a public school system free of sectarian influence must be established as a condition of statehood, another violation of the Tenth Amendment.
I would submit that the smallest unit of society, the family, is ultimately responsible for the education of its children. It is in the economic interest of the family to provide education for their own children.
The freedom to choose whether to educate or the method of education must be returned to them. The family must no longer be coerced to pay for two educations, public through forced taxation, and private/home education through tuition.
Next, the local school board should be free to assess the needs of their community and the children who are sent to the public schools. What is best for Seattle, is not always what is best for Quincy. The board should be free to hire and fire teachers without fear of reprisal from unions whose main objective is to gain and hold money and power, not educate children. Scholarships and subscriptions could be set up to help finance children whose families cannot afford the basic public school tuition. Volunteer mentors would have a place and any concerned citizen could contribute funds or time to help.
I don’t believe that the state has any role in educating children other that to insure that no child who wants to attend public school is denied that privilege because of race, creed, color, etc. The city and county could insure the public health and safety of any public building, including schools, and local law enforcement can provide background checks on potential staff, but this would be the extent of their involvement. The state should also stay out of private/home education situations.
The school district that is courageous enough to revamp its philosophy of education to meet the needs of the child rather than the needs of the system will be the successful school district of the future. A return to the classics in the humanities and sciences along with technological advances in virtual reality, computer technology, 3-D modeling software, and the Internet is the synergy needed to enter the 21st century and beyond.

The Universal Golden Rule

Recently I overheard a discussion at a patriotic event concerning the idea that principles would be a better way to measure the potential of political leaders and legislation in which a certain gentleman asked, “Whose principles?—a most discerning question and perhaps the most important one to ask during the upcoming election year. Are we to be governed by the principles of global corporations who seek to institute a form of economic slavery subjected to the greed of their shareholders? Or are we to be governed by those who would seek to politically enslave us in the name of safety and the common good? Either way we loose our liberty.
I ask the reader to consider that there are common principles, principles that all mankind can easily understand. It is in the understanding and living of these principles that leads to the path of peace among individuals, tribes, peoples, and nations. These principles are not new, nor are they the intellectual property of any particular creed.
The most basic principle is known in the Christian world as The Golden Rule, that is, "Whatsoever you desire that men should do to you, do you even so to them." (New Testament, Matthew 7:12). If you expect your opinion and lifestyle to be respected, you are obligated to first respect the lifestyles and opinions of others whether you agree with them or not. This principle requires that each individual allow every other individual the liberty to choose his or her own path in life. If every individual and nation actually lived by this simple principle, how the world would change. Here is a list of several other traditions that espouse this same value.

Vedic Tradition (3000 BC) - "This is the sum of duty. Do not unto others that which would cause you pain if done to you."

Judaism - Talmud, Shabbat 31a (1300 BC) "What is hateful to you, do not to our fellow man. That is entire Law, all the rest is commentary."

Zoroastrianism - Avesta, Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5 (600 BC) "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself."

Buddhism - Tripitaka, Udanga-varga 5,18 (525 BC) "Hurt not others in ways that you find hurtful."

Confucianism - Analects, Lun-yu XV,23 (500 BC) "Surely it is the maxim of loving kindness, do not unto others that which you would not have done unto you."

Jainism - Agamas, Sutrakrtanga 1.10, 1-3 (500 BC) "One should treat all beings as he himself would be treated."

Taoism - Tai-shang Kang-ying P'ien (500 BC) "Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain and your neighbor's loss as your loss."

Socrates (470-399 BC) "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you."

Seneca - Epistle XLVII,11 (5-65 AD) "Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors."

Shinto - Ko-ji-ki, Hachiman Kasuga (500 AD) "Be charitable to all beings, love is the representative of God."

Islam - Koran, Sunnah (620 AD) "No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself."
Sikhism - Granth, Japji XXI (1500 AD) "We obtain salvation by loving our fellow man and God."

It really is that simple.

(originally published in the Quincy Valley Post-Register: 19 July 2007)

The Declaration Of Independence

In this patriotic season, Memorial Day-Flag Day-the Fourth of July, the hearts and minds of the residents of the Quincy Valley reflect upon the sacrifices made for the cause of liberty. But, I wonder, do we pause to remember the “deeper magic from before the Dawn of Time” [C.S. Lewis, “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe”], the magic of liberty that stirs our souls to make such sacrifices, that inspired the Founding Fathers to forge the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? These principles are forever engraved in the hearts of all peoples-past, present, and future, all those who have been so blessed to know them.

• 
  “We hold these truths to be self-evident (even a little child will know when these are violated), that all Men are created equal (this includes you, male and female, rich and poor, without regard for creed, nationality, race, or ethnicity);
• that they are endowed by their Creator (by who? God, Nature, Allah, whatever you conceive that higher power to be) with certain unalienable rights (rights that neither individuals nor governments can deprive you of because these rights exist independent of anyone or anything);
• that among these are:

life

(the ability to move, to think, to grow, to learn),

liberty

(the power to act as one sees fit, without any restraint or control except by the laws of nature and the natural consequences of violating the liberty of others, whether they be good or whether they be bad, whether right or wrong),

and the pursuit of happiness

(the agreeable sensations which spring from the enjoyment of good, not evil).”

It seems to me that we have forgotten the simplicity of the way in the complexity of our modern government. We must begin to remember what we have forgotten, that government exists to PROTECT life, liberty, and property, not to deprive us of these rights, but to protect one individual or group from intrusion by another individual or group in these three areas only. We must use this knowledge to restore our government to its proper place in our lives. In this upcoming election year, exercise your patriotism all year as you ponder the issues and candidates that will be placed before you. Does a particular piece of legislation or candidate advocate the protection of life, liberty, or property, or does it advocate something that would interfere with it? Does a legislation or candidate seek to take something from one individual or group to give it to another? If so, it violates principles of true liberty and the reason for which governments are established, and each individual voter must decide for himself what secures liberty or what destroys liberty.

As Sherlock Holmes would say, “the game is afoot”, but the stakes are high and our very lives may depend upon it, in this age of globalization, terrorism, and climate changes. Let not our faithful dead have died in vain, rather let them live in our memories as we breathe the rarefied air we call liberty.

(originally published in the Quincy Valley Post-Register: 21 June 2007)