The biggest assumptions that have to be accepted for this to work are:

Assumption One:  No exemptions, no exclusions.  EVERY adult who earns an income will pay 10% of it in taxes.

Assumption Two: The federal government would be mandated to not only operate within the revenue generated by that 3% income tax rate, but also to pay off its standing debt.  Assumption Three: Incurring new federal debt would be prohibited and the current standing debt would have to be paid off by 2025.

Assumption Four: The new tax structure would go into effect with the 2013 tax reporting year which would impact the 2013/2014 federal budget year, so Congress would have between now and the end of September 2013 to enact a balanced, deficit reducing budget for the ‘13/’14 fiscal year.

Assumption Five: Since the cities, counties and states would be raising A LOT more money through income tax, no more “federal assistance” monies would be forthcoming starting October 1, 2013.

Assumption Six: Nothing in this outline impacts business tax, property tax, etc.  This is purely a discussion about PERSONAL INCOME tax (although I think that the huge increase in personal income tax seen by states, counties and cities should offset any and all sales tax, gas tax, etc.)

So, here we are: a 10% flat tax enacted (in my fictional world) on all income.  If you earn $10,000 in 2013, then you owe $1,000 taxes on your tax returns.  If you earn $100,000, then you owe $10,000.  If you earn $1,000,000 then you owe $100,000.  This isn’t brain surgery. It’s moving a decimal point.  Anyone can do it. Accountants might not be required for PERSONAL INCOME tax returns anymore.

Let’s use an income of $100,000 as our example.

Person earns $100,000 and files his (or her) tax return showing $10,000 due in taxes.  That $10,000 represents 3% to the federal government ($3,000), 3% to the state government ($3,000) and 3% to the county or city government wherein that person resides ($3,000).  The final 1% is for the charity program(s) of the payee’s choice.  So that’s $1,000 to charity.  That’s a total of $10,000 in taxes and donations but the filing is hugely simplified and the math is easy.

How much did you earn in 2013?  $100,000

How much do you owe in taxes for 2013? $10,000

The STATE government collects it all and distributes $3,000 to the federal government and $3,000 to the appropriate county/city.  The $1,000 charity distribution is sent to the specified organization(s).  Oh, look – we just did away with the need for about 99% of the Internal Revenue Service.

Now let’s talk about how much money, via income tax, this would actually raise.  To do so, I’m going to have to use “median household income” numbers from 2011 (most recent report I can find) and a few estimates that are reasonable.  Bear in mind that the median household income is supposed to represent how much taxable income the average HOUSEHOLD had (in this case, for 2011).  Many households had far less and some households had far more.  Many households have two wage earners.  Using the median income per household simply allows me to do the math without having to demonstrate average income for every person.

In 2011 the reported (from the government budget office) median household income in the United States was $50,502.  There were an estimated 117 million households in the U.S. that year.  That means that a total personal income of $5.9 TRILLION dollars was earned.  From the same government office we can see that a total of $1.09 TRILLION was taken by the federal government in personal income tax.  That $1.09 TRILLION does not include the money states, counties or cities took in personal income tax.  Keep that in mind as we do the math and realize that the federal government took 18.5% of all personal income earned in 2011 just in TAX.  That doesn’t include how much more was taken in social security payments, medicare/Medicaid payments, etc.  The $1.09 TRILLION that the federal government collected represented over 47% of the federal government’s total revenue came from personal income taxes collected.  The second largest source of revenue for the federal government was social security taxes combined with medicare taxes.

Now let’s do some math using my 10% flat tax rate.

That average household which earned $50,502 in 2011 would have to pay $5,050 in total taxes.  Projecting out the totals, the collected tax revenue would be:

$177 Billion for the federal government

$177 Billion for the state government

$177 Billion for the county/city government

$59 Billion for charities

Now, yes, that’s a significant reduction in how much money the federal government collects in personal income tax.  Such would no longer be the federal government’s primary source of revenue and the government would certainly have to find a way to operate within the new budget restrictions.  Then again, let’s think about a couple of things that would alleviate any pressure on the federal government:

A state bringing in $177 Billion in revenue shouldn’t have budget problems, especially when each county and/or city is bringing in the same thing.  The need for “trickle down” financial assistance should be relieved immediately.  Federal assistance, grant and miscellaneous funding programs could be dissolved.

Even a state as big as California, with its notorious budget problems, should see its financial issues resolved if you compare the $177 Billion of revenue to its 2012 general operating budget of $91.3 Billion. Heck, that’s an $85.7 Billion surplus!

Let’s look at a different state:  I’ll pick Maryland since it’s on the opposite coast and somewhat in the middle.  For 2012 the Maryland general operating budget was $32.4 Billion.  With a revenue generation of $177 Billion, Maryland would enjoy a $144.6 Billion surplus!  Consider what a county could do with that kind of money.

Let’s recognize one other thing: the states with the highest density of population would also have the highest income tax revenues.  That’s good because those states have matching higher service demands.  As an example, consider that states with higher populations have higher needs for public safety services, hospital and emergency care services, etc.  States with lower density populations have lower demands.

So, what about those cities with high percentages of people on welfare?  Well, my friends, welfare would be part of that 1% each person got to choose would go where when they filed their tax returns.  If I made $100,000 last year and I’m paying my $1,000 toward charity, I’d have a few options:

Option 1: check a box that allows the federal government to decide where it goes in federal services.

Option 2: check a box that allows my state government to decide where it goes in state services or to my home county/city.

Option 3: check a box that allows my county or city government to decide what to do with that $1,000.

Option 4: Specify a charity, or list of charities, and what percentage of my $1,000 I want to go to each.

As far as I’m concerned, given the extra amount of money we’d all be bringing home, Social Security could return to being optional, as it originally was.  If you want to invest for your retirement, have at it.  If you don’t make that choice, live with your decision.  We’d be returning, to some extent, personal responsibility back to ourselves and removing the huge involvement of “big brother” (government) in so much of our day to day life.

The one challenge I have with my own proposal is that the U.S. Department of Defense budget would have to be cut severely.  If the overall federal government budget is only $177 Billion each year, then a DoD budget of $708 Billion (like it was in 2011) is obviously unsustainable.  I offset this concern with two potential solutions:

First potential solution: cut a lot of the science-fiction development programs that we dump countless billions of dollars into.  Do we really need an unmanned fighter/bomber aircraft?  No, not really.  I don’t like risking the life of a pilot either, but having to weigh that life against the value of a given mission can serve to keep commanders on track and not ordering missions with an easy conscience simply because no human is involved.

Second potential solution: with all of the extra money states would have, the State National Guard units could certainly be beefed way up in manpower and equipment.  Those NG troops could be used for federal service as they currently are during times of war.  The controls would be that the NG units could only enter federal service for any action approved by majority vote of Congress – NOT just on the President’s order – and such assignment would also have to be approved by the majority of the given state’s legislature.  In other words, before Nebraska’s National Guard troops could be deployed to Afghanistan, the U.S. Congress would have had to declare war AND the Nebraska State Legislature would have to agree to the deployment.  It would, after all, be an expenditure of the state’s budget; not the federal government’s through the Department of Defense.

Think about this second solution.  The State National Guard units provide local support services during times of natural disaster, weather emergencies, civil unrest, etc.  To have them staffed, trained and equipped ten times better than they are now would be awesome.  To have the states able to support, or not, war against another country would put an interesting control on the federal government.  The improperly named “entitlement” spending of the federal government attached to military retirements and on-going medical care for veterans would be greatly reduced within one generation (20 years).  That responsibility would fall to the states, since that’s where most of the manpower would reside, and they’d certainly have the budgets to handle it with ease.

Finally, let’s think about the impact such a low tax rate would have on our consumer based economy.  If, in the 2014 calendar year, you had several thousand more dollars in your pocket to spend, would you spend it?  Certainly, you may not spend it all, but you’d likely spend a good chunk.

If your household brings in $100,000 and pays out about $17,000 in taxes (based on 2012 tax rates as published) in 2012 and then you compare that to making the same amount but paying a fixed $10,000 in taxes for 2013, that leaves you with an extra $7,000 to spend.  That’s $583 per month.  I can think of enjoyable ways my family could use that $583 per month and I CERTAINLY know what I can do with all the time I’d save by not having to spend a whole day or two figuring out how much I have to pay in taxes.  Additionally, it’d be real nice to file your income taxes knowing that you haven’t made any mistakes (because it’s so straight forward and easy) and the IRS isn’t going to come knock on your door because you didn’t update your tax software right before you filed or some such.

The bottom line (for me) is this: A flat tax rate at 10% TOTAL income tax should be more than enough for all levels of government to operate.  Divided properly amongst the levels of government, such a tax rate can be accompanied by a strengthening of state governments and a reduction in the power of the federal government – a situation that was intended by our founding fathers but that has been deteriorating since the era of the Civil War.

What are your thoughts on a 10% flat tax rate?

Quotes & Reference:

“One thing is clear: The Founding Fathers never intended a nation where citizens would pay nearly half of everything they earn to the government.”
― Ron Paul

“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”
― Winston Churchill

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
― Thomas Jefferson

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship.”
― Alexander Fraser Tytler

“The power to tax is the power to destroy.”
― John Marshall

“The taxpayer is the new permanent underclass.”
― Andrew Wilkow

“The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities.”
― Adam Smith

“An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.”
― John Marshall

“By today’s standards King George III was a very mild tyrant indeed. He taxed his American colonists at a rate of only pennies per annum. His actual impact on their personal lives was trivial. He had arbitrary power over them in law and in principle but in fact it was seldom exercised. If you compare his rule with that of today’s U.S. Government you have to wonder why we celebrate our independence…”
― Joseph Sobran

Before 1763, Americans were the least taxed citizens in the western world. Colonial subjects were taxed, on average, a total of about one shilling per head per year. (Brief digression here: While these conversions are tenuous, and some might say meaningless, over the span of a couple centuries or so, I spent some time with some conversion, wage, exchange rate, and price index tables from the Census Bureau’s Historical Statistics of the US, and came up with a conversion of one pound sterling in 1770 = about $150 in 1998, with a shilling equal to 1/20 of a pound sterling, or twelve pence = $7.50 today; the average wage for an urban laborer was around 5 shillings, equivalent to about $40, per day.) In Britain, the tax amount worked out to about 26 shillings per year (say around 200 bucks). So the American colonists, for all their bitching and moaning, were actually taxed at a much lower rate than their cousins who’d stayed in the old country. Still, as I say, it was the principle of the thing.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1594/percentagewise-were-taxes-greater-in-the-old-days-or-now

As worded in federal law 18 U.S.C. § 1385:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

The Posse Comitatus Act was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of the Reconstruction and was updated in 1981.  Its intent was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws.  As I have learned, Posse Comitatus does not prohibit (as I always believed and was told by one of the senior training agents at the FBI) military personnel from exercising law enforcement powers within a State; it merely requires that any such authority must exist within the U.S. Constitution or by an Act of Congress.

In doing research for this blog entry I found that there have been changes and exemptions to that law passed since it was initiated in 1878.  The original act, as shown, refers to the Army or Air Force (which itself is interesting since the Air Force didn’t exist as a stand-alone entity until the 1940s).  In 1981 it was modified to “the Armed Forces of the United States” and specified that it did not apply to National Guard forces acting under state authority within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state’s governor.  To clarify one other entity, Posse Comitatus does not apply to the Coast Guard because the C.G. has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.

For all that, it is generally believed that Posse Comitatus prohibits the federal government from using soldiers, marines, airmen or seamen, of active duty or reserve status, to enforce domestic laws.  Additionally, to the best I can find in my research, no such event has occurred since WWII and even then the actions were directly war related and in support of federal law enforcement agencies to support man-power needs.

How then, one must wonder, can the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, issue a statement that says it’s legal and lawful and within the powers of the President of the United States, to order a drone attack against a citizen of the United States?  Such would not only violate Posse Comitatus (assuming it was a military drone) but also the Fifth Amendment due process protection delineated in the Constitution.

The President could obviously skirt around Posse Comitatus by using federal agents instead of military personnel or equipment.  It would be a matter of paperwork, even if done after the fact, for the Army or Air Force to “loan” a drone to the Department of Homeland Security, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Agency, etc.  But even if the drone is “the property” of a domestic federal law enforcement agency AND driven by law enforcement personnel, how does any reasonable adult feel that the President of the United States has the lawful authority to execute (assassinate) an American citizen without affording that citizen all of the rights of due process as recognized and guaranteed in our Constitution?

As I wrote this blog I sat and tried to imagine a scenario wherein I would feel it okay for such an order to be given and followed.

If the President could have given a drone-strike order to take out Timothy McVeigh prior to the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, would it have been justified?  In hindsight many of us would be tempted to say, “Yes,” simply because it would save 168 lives and prevent over 800 injuries.  HINDSIGHT is a beautiful talent but unfortunately does not exist as FORESIGHT.  If then-President Clinton had ordered a drone strike on McVeigh, the attack SHOULD have been deemed unlawful and unConstitutional and the orders should have been refused. Would they have been?  How would anyone even know?

What if, pre nine-eleven, President Bush could have ordered a drone strike on a given house where a number of the terrorists were living as they waited for the date of the attack to arrive?  In ordering a drone strike on that residence the President could have avoided at least one hijacking and saved any number of lives.  Would such an order have been justified?  In this case we’re not even talking about American citizens; there’s a legal argument as to whether or not Posse Comitatus or the Constitution even applies to them.  I ask again, would it have been justified?  Hindsight says yes.

I have come to the conclusion that, short of the invasion of the United States by a foreign military, there can be no good reason for the President to order a drone strike on a domestic target.  Further, if the target holds ANY American citizen – even a convicted criminal – the Fifth Amendment protections granted by deity and delineated by our forefathers in the Constitution of the United States prohibits such an action.

No President should have the power to order an assassination without first observing every Constitutional protection an American citizen has. No government employee should have the authority to order an execution or assassination without first observing every Constitutional protection an American citizen has. No Attorney General should believe that it’s lawful and legal for a President to order the assassination of an American citizen, without due process, under ANY circumstances.

This is just my opinion.  Yours may be different. I’d enjoy reading them.

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

January 28, 2013

President Obama;

It is with humble respect that I prepare this letter to the highest executive governmental office in our land.  Long have I believed that our nation, these United States of America, is the greatest and most just our world has ever seen.  My faith in that belief was and is such that I sacrificed years of my life to serve in our nation’s military as a Military Policeman in the U.S. Army.  I further served in the Army National Guard both as an infantry soldier and as a combat engineer.  Finally, I’ve dedicated my life to serving justice as a law enforcement professional and an instructor thereof.  Throughout all of that, no matter what news I’ve seen, heard or read, I’ve maintained my belief that our nation remains the greatest on earth.

I believe that to be true, even as we have reached almost 237 years of age, because of the collective wisdom of our founding fathers and how careful they were to document their values and intentions in our country’s founding documents: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.  Our founding fathers were careful in the extreme to insure that future generations couldn’t easily change the meaning or intent of those documents.  237 years later I believe that such an occurrence is in danger of happening.  I believe that the original intent, values and protections built into those founding documents is being skewed and/or attacked and I call upon you, and the power of your office, to Protect and Preserve the Constitution – as your oath of office requires you to do.

Mr. President, our Constitution and the American way of life are indeed endangered.  This is not a sudden or surprise event.  Through various amendments to the Bill of Rights, a plethora of federal laws, court decisions at all levels of our judicial branch of government, and a simple lethargic attitude on the part of a great many citizens, “Constitutional” seems to be somewhat distorted in today’s society.  While the finger of blame can be pointed all around, you, sir, have the personal responsibility of your office to uphold, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, NOT as revisionists wish it had been written or meant, but as our founding fathers wrote it to include their intentions as are well documented in other historical papers.

I have to admit my disappointment, Mr. President, in your actions and statements to date.  While I’ve yet to find a person I will agree with on every single political or social point, I find myself disagreeing with you on the large majority of issues.  Some of those same issues are those addressed by our founding fathers and it appears to me that you are, with knowledge aforethought, fully informed and with all conscious intent, actively working to either dismantle or dissolve our Constitution, the limits it places on government and the protections it guarantees all American citizens.

Now I won’t pretend to have the legal education you are alleged to have.  I don’t.  I won’t pretend to have the experience in manipulating the political process that you have.  I don’t.  I won’t pretend to know as much about giving and receiving favors to increase my standing or leverage the positions of others.  I don’t.  But I’m not the only person who has to be honest about what I can or can’t do; know or don’t know; have done or haven’t done, am I, sir?

I’d appreciate it if you’d stop pretending that you know anything about what it’s like to be a middle class hard-working father and husband attempting to support a family.  Based on media reports and your own biography, I don’t see where you’ve ever been in a challenged financial position.  I’d also appreciate it if you’d stop pretending that the government can solve everyone’s problems.  Surely you’ve heard the saying, “You can’t please everyone all the time,”?  While I completely understand that the first and most primary “job” of politicians is to attain or retain the highest office possible, I maintain that priority is wildly skewed from the intent of every founding father our country had.  While it’s true that every president since George Washington has campaigned to win the office, it’s NOT true that every one of them has done so for his own personal gain, to feed his ego, to increase his power, or to make money.  As an American who has sacrificed, I have to believe that some of our presidents also knew the meaning of sacrifice and did so to be great leaders for our nation.  I’m sorry, sir, but I can’t count you among their number.

Today I sit to type this letter to you, having experienced attacks upon or reductions in the protections guaranteed to me in the Bill of Rights, most specifically in the 4^th, 5^th, 8^th, 10^th and 14^th Amendments.  In the past month specifically, yourself and many of those within your political party have blatantly and with no shame also attacked the 2^nd Amendment and continue to do so.

Mr. President, don’t you understand?  Our founding fathers were among a group of people who risked everything; some sacrificed everything; they fought with everything they had to secure our independence from tyrannical rule and then they used their collective knowledge, experience and wisdom to create founding documents for our country with the intention that the citizens of our country would be protected from tyranny forever.  Being the wise men that they were, though, they also built in the necessary protections – recognition of God-granted liberties, and guarantees of protection from government infringement upon those liberties – to insure that WE THE PEOPLE would always have recourse if ANY government attempted to treat us in such a tyrannical method ever again.

Mr. President, I urge you to become a student of American history; specifically of the events that led up to the Civil War.  I beg of you to intimately learn what truly led to that conflict and the actions so many states took before hostilities ever broke out.  I compel you to recognize the similarities that exist in the disagreements between some states and the federal government then and now.  Please, Mr. President, read, learn, integrate the knowledge and change your course of leadership.  I fear our country is dangerously close to a 2^nd Civil War and I have a difficult time even calling it that – because there was nothing civil about the first war between the states.  A second such war would surely be the ugliest of conflicts, with no battle lines, far too much collateral damage and suffering the likes of which no American citizen has seen since 1865.

Please, Mr. President, consider the point of view of those who disagree with you.  Recognize that you represent ALL Americans; not just those who voted for you or who appreciate all of the expansion you’ve directed in social services and welfare.  Adjust your outlook to at least respect the values and beliefs of those American citizens you disagree with and open an honest dialogue with those who represent them.  Learn that the power of the office of President of the United States should be humbling, not ego-boosting.  Realize that you hold sway from the most powerful office of free countries in the world, and bear that banner with pride in the traditional values of our great nation.

Thank you for your time and attention to this communication.  I expect no written response but pray that your response will be demonstrated in your words and actions.

A respectful, patriotic, American citizen,

Frank Borelli

Well it’s true now, yes, it’s true now

That I do not own a gun,

But of all the men I’ve ever killed,

I’ve never needed one.

A braggart and a bully

Stood above me one fine day

And he said that since I had no gun

He’d let me crawl away

He laughed at me and kicked my face,

With a heavy pointed boot;

And joked with friends as he strode off,

I was not good enough to shoot!

But a braggart and a drinker

Is an easy man to track;

And an Oaken cudgel, angry swung

Causes any skull to crack!

Well it’s true now, yes, it’s true now

That I do not own a gun,

But of all the men I’ve ever killed,

I’ve never needed one.

Another man looked down his nose,

Like other men were sludge;

For he thought himself greater,

As a lawyer and a judge.

But he did not care for justice

As he looked down on me;

Justice was a foul word,

He worshipped only “Legality!”

Well… Twist a man’s neck fast enough

And you take out all the slack;

And I left him in his judge’s chair;

Staring down – on his own back!

Well it’s true now, yes, it’s true now

That I do not own a gun,

But of all the men I’ve ever killed,

I’ve never needed one.

‘Guess you’d say I’m not a cultured,

Nor an educated man;

I can’t really tell the diff’rence

‘tween Tchaikovsky and Chopin.

But, when a man of letters cheats you

and steals your hard earned cash;

Nothing speaks so eloquent as…

his throat opened in a gash!

Well it’s true now, yes, it’s true now

That I do not own a gun,

But of all the men I’ve ever killed,

I’ve never needed one.

The only girl I ever loved

Was taken by a gang;

They used her like a rag doll

And left her in her pain.

The Law swore; they would get them;

The Law swore; they would pay;

Too true, from ropes they – Every One –

Did I make breezy sway!

Well it’s true now, yes, it’s true now

That I do not own a gun,

But of all the men I’ve ever killed,

I’ve never needed one.

Stripling David killed Goliath

With a little river rock

But a score of thuggish giants

Could have been flattened with a Glock.

Yet still, I think if you could ask,

Of Goliath’s mortifying bones

He’d say, “Don’t Underestimate

The, well thrown, river stones!”

Oh it’s true now, Yes it’s true now

That I do not own a gun.

But of all the thugs I’ve ever killed

I’ve never needed one.

Yes, To an expert with a hammer

All things look just like a nail;

And a human spine hit proper

Squishes down, just like a snail!

And a piano-wire garrotte string,

With two wood handles in a “T”,

‘Round his neck – will make a man sing;

From the High Key of “E”!

An Arson-fire has worked quite well

And allows time to get away

And a thirteenth level balcony

Makes an easy “Bombs Away!”

Well it’s true now, yes, it’s true now

That I might not own a gun,

And of all the men I’ll ever kill,

I might not be needin’ one.

Ben Franklin it is said has writ

“The pen is more mighty than the sword.”

And too many politician-types

Have taken ol’ Ben’s word.

With strokes of pens these Beuro’crats

Have started many wars…

Filled Gulags & Gas chambers

And brought us other horrors!

And always they pass “Legal” laws

To take the People’s guns away

For ‘tis far more to a wolf’s liking –

Amongst defenseless sheep to prey!

Truth is, it’s the Insane (& Politicians)

Who create atrocities!

And tyrants all feel better when –

Unarmed slaves are on their knees.

They claim to want but Hope and Peace

And from violence far stay…

Until the moment Violence –

Can help them get their way!

Then the “Peaceful” Poli-tyrant

Turns to his own guns, and…

Commands the slaughter to commence,

Killing Grand-ma’s, kids and nuns.

For it’s POWER, only POWER

To which they turn their greed.

For it’s POWER, only POWER

To which they hold their creed.

But first, they don’t want peasants

To be getting in THEIR way:

And that is why they – Tyrants All –

Try to take our guns away!

A shoestring or screwdriver,

A knife’s blade or a gun –

Fear not the thing – but fear the MAN;

When there’s violence to be done!

Yes, guns might make killin’ easy

But, when there’s killin’ to be done

You may rest – profound – assured…

I won’t be NEEDIN’ one!

Authored by Ann Walls

Yes, I am in favor of the death penalty and believe that every state should act upon it. The death penalty was something that people came up with to punish people for doing something that was unethical and against the law.

Now, all we do is place these same criminals in a jail cell where we, the innocent, the victims, are paying for them to have better accommodations than those working to support a family. We have veterans that are homeless and trying to look for work and barely making it day by day. Whereas, the criminals that we have placed in jail for murder, rape, or abuse sit inside a sheltered area with a bed, pillow, sheets, food for every meal, and television. This is appalling to me and I think that our society is so corrupt that we think that this is okay.

The way I see it, people believe that as long as the criminal is off the street they are doing no harm and I beg to differ on that. They are still taking our money which helps pay for their food, water, electricity, shelter, health care and cable bill. Why is that money not going towards something useful such as helping those families who are barely making it by in this economy and need help paying for their food or rent to keep a roof over their children’s heads? This is what should be important to our society, but no, we are more concerned with the criminals “rights” that in my opinion they lost when they decided to kill, steal, or commit any other crime. If the criminal wanted to have their rights respected then they should not have committed a crime.

Those criminals who are sitting in jail with a sentence of life in prison without a chance of parole should receive the death penalty no matter what. If every person who was in jail right now with that sentence received the death penalty tomorrow, that is a lot of mouths we no longer have to pay to feed and maybe that food can go towards someone who deserves to eat. I do not feel that people deserve to die because of each of their actions, but I do feel that you need to be punished adequately for them. If a prisoner is sitting in jail basically waiting to die in there with absolutely no chance is getting out, then why are we paying for their stay when we could save that money?

My opinion may be harsh, but I stand behind it all the way. I know I look at the death penalty different than others do simply because I feel they do not have the option of death penalty or life in prison if that is their sentence. I do not believe that they should be able to get a prison sentence if they are there for murder (circumstances differ in each case – accidental vehicular manslaughter I do not think needs to receive the death penalty). With this said, I think many people would be much happier knowing that the ones who hurt their loved ones or friends will pay for what they have done.

As I type this there is one week to go before Christmas.  Two months ago in October, I marked my 30^th anniversary in law enforcement.  It’s quite literally what I’ve done all my adult life (minus eight months between turning 18 and reporting for the Army to become an MP).  I’ve been the owner and editor for New American Truth for almost a decade (yep, we’ve been around that long now).  For all that; for everything I’ve been taught; for everything I’ve experienced; for everything I’ve taught as an instructor since 1989… I have no answers to this one simple question:  “Why?”

Anyone who watches the news or follows social media in any form has seen the reports about the heinous events that occurred in Newtown, Connecticut.  As the mainstream media tries to milk every minute of coverage out of the crimes and losses, the reporting evolves from straight fact (which often proves incorrect), to opinion about the facts (which is now subjective information about incorrect facts) to pure opinion about various political ideologies.  For several days we’ve seen pro- versus anti-gun debates resurface not only because guns were used but what kinds of guns were used.  Now, today, I’ve seen the pro-choice / pro-life debate brought up in connection.

I don’t know the answers to everyone’s questions and while I can reasonably debate my own opinion and perspective the stark reality is that none of this conversation will bring back the 26 murdered innocents.  Nothing can turn back the hands of time and stop one human being from murdering 28 others before committing suicide.  Each time I see someone comment about potential motivations, possible causes, the empowerments of too few of these laws or too many of those laws…  I sit back and think, “But we still can’t answer ‘why’.”

The reality is that we rarely, if ever, can.  The reality is that isn’t our job.  It is not the job of law enforcement professionals to explain WHY a criminal commits a crime unless INTENT is part of what we have to prove.  If INTENT isn’t part of our case, then we only waste time if we focus on it.  Sure, the mainstream media wants to have endless debates about WHY someone commits murder or HOW someone was victimized.  When a man goes into a school and hunts innocent children and then kills himself, WHY doesn’t matter.  It is absolutely part of our human nature to want to know, but it’s not a question we’ll ever be able to answer with confidence.

Instead, what we in law enforcement have to deal with is the clean-up.  As much as I mourn the loss of those teachers and the precious young students, I worry about my brother and sister officers who had to respond to the scene.  Nothing will ever remove the images they’ll forever hold in their memories.  Nothing can relieve the pain they’ll feel every time they do remember those images.  For as much as we try to help officers involved in shootings and other life-threatening events, I’d wager that nothing we do is as stressful or trauma-inducing as responding to the scene where multiple children have died; all the worse when those deaths were caused by acts of violence.

In as much as you believe in prayer or the power of positive thought, please keep our brother and sister officers in your memories and your hearts.  We need to support them in every way and help them balance the horror they viewed against all the good they do every day, day in and day out.

It behooves us all – every law enforcement professional in the country – to remember that we are instruments of good; that we protect and serve; that we defend the underdog; that we protect the innocents to the absolute best of our ability, not only on duty but even as we go about our day-to-day lives off-duty.  We need to remember that we are not alone; we belong to one of the largest “families” in the world: that of the law enforcement profession.  The Thin Blue Line that we not only balance precariously upon but are also the essence of is also our lifeline if we need salvation from traumatic memories or destructive thoughts.

Although we can never fully answer, “Why?” as we solve crimes and clean-up scenes of violence, we CAN hold each other in comfort both literally and figuratively.  Especially during the normally stressful holiday season, added to by this tragedy, let’s make sure we do.

Liberal: favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

Definitions provided by Dictionary.com

I am confused. Part of my confusion comes from labeling myself a Libertarian while being registered to vote as an Independent. Part of my confusion comse from the fact that our political parties seem to be tagged with labels that are the opposite of what each party allegedly stands for. Part of my confusion is that politics, like sexual orientation, is not necessarily either THIS or THAT but often can be fifty shades of gray (or more).

What am I talking about? I had a conversation with a man at work one day and by the end of our conversation he was laughing. When I asked what was so humorous he answered, “Because you’re so far off to the right that you’re coming around on the left.” By “right” he meant conservative/Republican; by “left” he meant liberal/Democrat. In truth, the reason I registered as an independent voter is because the Libertarian party doesn’t sway enough votes yet in national elections to do anything but harm either party by reducing their total vote count.

To continue this discussion, let’s take a look at a few contemporary national issues, the primary policies of each party and identify whether that seems in line or at odds with the actual definition of the words used to identify them.

Abortion:

Conservatives/Republicans are generally viewed as Pro-Life, against abortion. Since Roe v. Wade decided that a Pro-Life mandate is unconstitutional, it would seem that trying to create a Pro-Life mandate would be insisting on change; not limiting it. This appears go against the definition of conservative.

Liberals/Democrats are generally viewed as Pro-Choice, allowing abortion. This would seem to support the concept of maximum individual freedom to the pregnant woman making the choice, matching the definition as far as I can tell.

Gun Control:

Conservatives/Republicans are generally viewed as pro-gun, anti-gun-control. The 2nd Amendment has been a foundational concept of America since before she was “born.” I view this position as in line withe definition of conservtive – preserving a traditional position.

Liberals/Democrats are generally viewed as anti-gun, pro-gun-control. This seems antithetical to their label. A party that is supposed to favor maximum individual freedom should support every individual’s right to keep and carry, with as little restriction as possible, a firearm.

Immigration:

Conservatives/Republicans are generally viewed as strong proponents of enforcement against illegal immigration. Recognizing that our country was built by immigrants and has grown its population by the addition of more immigrants for centuries, it might seem counter to the label to be against immigrtion; however, the devil is in the details. Conservatives/Republicans are not against immigration but against illegal immigration. The focus on legalit is paramount.

Liberals/Democrats are generally viewed as being in favor of forgiving illegal immigrants for the crime of having entered our country illegally and granting them citizenship by virtue of their presence within our borders. That seems in line with the philosophy of recognizing the maximum individual freedom of each person. The question becomes whether or not America should extend all of her rights and freedoms to non-citizens.

Taxation:

Conservatives/Republicans are generally viewed as against increasing taxes. Since one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, once said that any tax over 3% was criminal, I think we can view a push for lower and/or fewer taxes as restoring a traditional outlook. Ths seems in line with the definition of conservative.

Liberals/Democrats are generally viewed as in favor of increased taxes, more taxes, etc. This seems directly opposite of the philosophy of maximum individual freedom since taxation is an infringement on economic freedom. The burden created on an individual by government taxation (and there is no other kind) hinders indiviual economic growth and limits economic freedom.

Strong Military:

Conservative/Republicans are generally viewed as being in favor of a strong military and using that military strength, even if only in appearance, to project an image of a strong United States. Given that our country was born out of military strength used against a tyrant, this seems to be one of our country’s oldest traditions and would be in line with the definition of conservative. NOTE: HAVING a strong military and USING a strong military are two different things. Quite often the Republican desire to strengthen our military becomes the center of discussions about involving the U.S. in war(s). Being prepared for war and being involved in war are two different things.

Liberals/Democrats are generally viewed as being in favor of reducing military strength and favoring compromise above war at all costs. Given that our military exists to protect and defend our country frmo those who would attack us, and given that our concept of civil liberties cannot exist without our country, both geographic and philosophic, it would seem that a strong military would be a priority based on the definition of liberal. So the standing perceived philosophy seems opposite to the definition.

SO…

Left, right? Liberal, Conservative? Democrat, Republican? Libertarian, Constitutionalist? How about JUST AMERICAN!

I think our challenge in labeling politicians or belief structures, and the limitations we sometimes run into as we try to understand opposing points of view, is brought about in part by commonly used imagery that limits our thinking. Most often a line is used to show political leanings: the extreme left end is the liberal/Democrat end, and the extreme right end is the conservative/Republican end. Often Libertarians and Constitutionalists are identified as being even MORE extreme right with communists and socialists being even MORE extreme left. Again, I think this “line” concept is wrong. It limits our visual thinking.

I like to think of political beliefs as more of a circle. Like my friend said, I’m so far to the right that I’m coming around on the left. Many of my beliefs are in line with the cotemporary political philosophies of the conservative/Republicans, but some of them aren’t. Then again, if I label myself based on the definitions provided above, I’m a Liberal Conservative… or a Conservative Liberal.

I believe our challenge in America is this: to find representatives who tell the truth about their outlook and whom we can identify as being motivated about honoring our country’s traditions WHILE maximizing individual freedoms. I believe that should be our goal for the 2016 elections. Your thoughts?

I heard about the crash at the Pentagon on the drive home followed by news of Flight 93′s crash in that Pennsylvania field. I remember wondering how many more were going to go down. I had friends working in a government building across the highway from Dulles International Airport and, after the fact, I remember them telling me hwo every plane that came in for a landing presented them with fear: would this one miss the runway and hit their building? The building itself was on security lockdown and they couldn’t leave until later in the day. I kept my children home the next day from school, concerned about what the follow-up attack might be; waiting for rescue workers to discover an unknown threat in the rubble at all four sites.

I remember how, on September 12th, 2011, there was an American flag proudly flying outside every house on my street. I remember seeing American flags flying from car antennas, stuck on windows, hand-sewn onto the backs of jackets and sweatshirts. For all that I can’t help but wonder what I’ve forgotten.

As we acknowledge the eleventh “anniversary” of the September 11th, 2001 attacks on our country, I have to ask: Have you forgotten?

Sure, some things have changed. The government administration has changed. We have a different person in the Oval Office; control of Congress has gone back and forth; we’ve captured Saddam Hussein (and his own people hung him) and we’ve killed Osama Bin Laden (but no great celebration was held). So with all that’s changed, do we still need to remember those attacks? Do we still need to feel threatened? or can we get on with life?

I submit to you that we cannot forget; we should never forget. Our enemies are still out there, and some of them are here at home (domestic terrorism). Our fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and more are still at war in two countries in the middle east. Whether you agree with them being there or not, we need to support them until they all come home. When will that be? Who knows. No matter what the current administration says, the Global War On Terror will not be over until mankind finds a way to peacefully co-exist despite religious and political differences. We haven’t done that across the span of the past couple thousand years. I don’t see it happening in the near future.

I have a friend who reminds me of the strength of the American people every year around this time. It’s a brief question and answer session that I’ll share because I believe it truly does illustrate the strength, not necessarily of America, but of AMERICANS.

Question: How long did it take America to respond to the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001?

Answer: We still are, eleven years later.

Question: How long did it take AMERICANS to respond to the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001?

Answer: Flight 93.

AMERICANS are the strength and bedrock of this great nation. WE must never forget the lessons we learned on that terrible day.

We need to remember.

We need to remember the attacks that occurred.

We need to remember (and honor) the lives lost.

We need to remember and honor the sacrifices being made by our military personnel worldwide today.

We need to remember and honor the sacrifices being made by our public safety professionals nationwide every day.

We need to remember and honor that our country, as fought for and designed by our forefathers, is not up for compromise. We need to be ready to fight for it each day.

In the words of Darryl Worley: Have you forgotten?

I haven’t. I won’t. I ask you to make the same commitment.

In today’s stereoptypical usage the term “redneck” is often used to refer to someone who was born either in the country or in the mountains, is generally financially poor, and not having received much education. As with all stereotypes, the term is used just as often to refer to those who may match only one of those characteristics, or may not match any of them but some other characteristic perceived as “redneckish”. Here’s my reality…

I was born into a poor family in Cumberland, Maryland. That’s in the Appalachian mountains and, given the industries existent at the time of my birth, could also be considered “country”. I was the eighth of nine children. My mother, at the time of my birth, had only reached the ninth grade before dropping out. It took one of my brothers two attempts to graduate from high school. Hunting and farming were the mainstays of food supplies for my family – and actually still are. Looking strictly at that information, yes I was born into a redneck family… but only if you buy into the stereotype.

My mother went on to earn her GED and did so well that she was hired by the Board of Education to tutor others seeking a GED. She eventually ended up working for the Superintendent of Schools and retired after 30 years. Four of my older brothers were drafted, but two chose to make military service their career. Both retired from the United States Marine Corps. I think that makes them “leather necks” instead of “rednecks”.

As I was raised I was taught that there was nothing derogatory about the term “redneck”. In my family’s experience the term was simply used to refer to hard working farmers who literally did have red necks because of the time spent working under the sun. Those same farmers were usually quite polite, respectful, and if not well educated, at least not ignorant or simple. Sure, there are some uneducated and simple people who are farmers. There are also uneducated and simple people who are secretaries, mechanics, security guards, and politicians. That doesn’t mean that ALL of them are simple or uneducated.

Rednecks – those polite hard working folks who earn their living working with their hands under the sun – would be more likely to stop and assist a stranded motorist with a flat tire or overheated car than other folks. Those rednecks know what true hospitality is because they value their home and the family in it more than a great many folks who value their home based on equity or market value. Rednecks might tend toward larger families because they consider every child a blessing delivered by God – and another set of hands to eventually work the farm when they’re old enough.

Online research shows different possible beginnings for the term “redneck”. While they are all interesting I don’t find them of value today. Who cares where the term came from? Let’s figure out whether or not it’s a derogatory term today.

Rednecks… are more than likely conservative and / or republican. They likely hunt, fish, camp, farm, garden and dance. When they do hunt or fish they eat what they take, or they clean it and give it to those in greater need. They don’t hunt or fish for sport. They farm and garden to provide food for their families and to sell whatever surplus they can raise (the crops, not the families). Camping is comfortable for them because they’re at home outside. They may look goofy when they dance, but it’s one of the ways they celebrate life so they don’t worry about how they look. In fact, if their friends and family are laughing then it means they’re not crying and life is better than it could be.

Rednecks tend to be fairly resilient people. Sure, they might have health insurance, but they won’t run to the doctor for every cough, bruise, sneeze or sniffle. They know how to set a splint, bandage a cut, sew cuts closed if need be, and have a collection of homemade cures for coughs and colds. Inevitably part of the cure will be to get out and do something because sitting around thinking out how you feel only increases the suffering you feel. They are a very practical people.

Rednecks tend to enjoy country music – not because it’s country music but because you can still understand the lyrics and many of the songs tell stories they enjoy hearing. Some songs make a point about life that is important and the rednecks encourage their children to listen to those songs. Family stories are still told around the fireplace at Christmas and happiness isn’t counted in how many presents are under a tree, but in how many healthy family members are there to celebrate together.

Rednecks tend to look at life as one long adventure, with something new to be learned or experienced every day. They are very protective of family and will stand shoulder to shoulder to fight against any threat that faces even a single family member. I clearly remember being told by my older brothers, “Just remember: you’re one of us. We can mess with you, but no one else can. If they do, come get us. If they mess with us, you come running when we call. We stand together.” Wow. Hallelujah. THAT made me fell awful good to be a part of something that committed and strong.

And rest assured, my brothers do mess with each other. Every year at the family reunion we pick on one for his belly, another for his baldness… each has something we pick on them for. Most of them time, what we pick on one brother for applies to several other brothers as well. Not that our sisters get off free either. They get their fair share and give it right back. Mom just shakes her head at how silly we are expressing our care and love for each other in the jokes and laughter.

The family reunion is probably another example of our redneckness. Held in a park it involves deep frying a couple turkeys, grilling chicken, burgers, hotdogs, sausage and whatever other meat family members bring. Homemade potato salad, egg salad, deviled eggs, pasta salad and more all shows up. Coolers full of water, soda and beer get set out. No one has to watch the beer coolers. None of the children will even try to get into them. They know that if they do someone will give them a swift swat on the butt. It will sting; it will be loud enough for everyone to hear and turn their head to look at; and at that point the offending child’s parent will come to deal with them.

Our children learn our values and work ethic through family involvement. Accomplishments are praised across the board so that the pride one parent feels in a child’s accomplishment is echoed repeatedly by every aunt and uncle. Cousins compare notes, boyfriends, girlfriends, life status, cars, knives, and more. Bits of newly learned wisdom are passed among the cousins and then between brothers and sisters as they’re picked up. Since the family reunion is the one day of the year when everyone in the family will be present, gifts are exchanged. Not a single child will leave without some new toy, stuffed animal or something else.

One brother paints beautiful scenes on the feathers of turkeys he’s hunted. The painted feather is then matted and framed. He brings a collection to the reunion and no one leaves without something new. My mother-in-law has an entire collection of Christmas Tree Ornaments that were made by that particular brother. He collected deer antlers – the sheds one spring – and cut them down before painting light houses on them. Since my mom-in-law loves lighthouses, I thought it was an appropriate gift. He was proud to have them on her tree.

Another brother makes wallets and handbags out of the deerskin he gets when he hunts deer. Everything that goes into them comes from the deer. Sometimes his wife will embellish the outside with beads or other decoration. That same brother and his wife make a lot of their own clothing.

Just driving up into the mountains for the reunion makes me feel closer to home. I spend the day in the company of my family and realize what the term “redneck” means to me. And after that day I can say this without any hesitation at all: I’m PROUD to be a redneck. Calling me one is far from an insult. It’s a compliment; it’s a recognition I wear with pride and honor. After all, knowing all of the above, who wouldn’t want to be one?

My Response…

First it was Mayor Michael Bloomberg leveraging the death of innocents to push his anti-gun agenda. How did he do it? He suggested cops go on strike. Yep, he’s as smart as the average house plant. Now it’s Michael Moore. Not surprisingly, ALSO on the Piers Morgan Tonight show (a man who is notoriously anti-gun and not even American at that), Michael Moore shows up, plays to the sympathies of parents, claims that the majority of Americans are in favor of greater gun control laws and then says he refuses to live in a country like this. Um… but he also says he’s not leaving so the whole country has to change. Why? To make Michael Moore happy.

Mr. Moore – PISS OFF. I’m offended by the fact that you put your face in front of a camera, time after time, after saying you never will again, and you leverage the death of innocents to promote your cause. What might that cause be? Anything you can criticize in such a way as to make a profit.

In “Bowling for Columbine” you twisted the facts to suit your agenda: more gun control. A DECADE ago you leveraged the death of innocents to line your pockets with money. Just in the past couple years you’ve backed the Occupy movement and decried greed in our society. Today you’re back in our face again, using the deaths of a single child to play to parents to support YOUR beliefs; to keep YOUR name in the headlines; to attempt to force all of America to change just because YOU don’t like the way something is.

Well, Mr. Moore – I don’t like your beliefs. I disagree with you. I don’t consider your point of view worth the air you spend voicing it. I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is. NEVER again used a paid security guard. NEVER again accept someone else paying for YOUR security. OPEN yourself to the public IN PUBLIC and let’s see how well you do. Stand behind your stated beliefs agaist greed in society and GIVE AWAY YOUR MILLIONS to the Occupiers. STOP BEING A HYPOCRITE!

Mr. Moore. I believe you are a pathetic excuse for a human being who makes his living off of the misery and suffering of others. You do so by trying to convince those suffering that it is AMERICA’S fault that they suffer. You do so by tring to convince those suffering that if we could just have MORE gun control then they wouldn’t have suffered that loss. Mr. Moore, you’re a fraud and a waste of protoplasm.

Mr. Moore – be as good as your word. Since you refuse to live in a country such as the one I love and have served for going on three decades now, PACK YOUR CRAP AND MOVE THE HELL OUT! Go someplace else that has gun control laws which are satisfactory to you; live in a country that has a 75% tax rate and see how you like it. Go live anywhere but America since you hate our values and our foundation so much. Just, please, GO AWAY!