Sovereignty and Immigration

Currently, the United States has a serious problem with its own sovereignty. This problem is two fold, as I see it. On the one side is the immigration issue, and the other side is an issue relating to foreign affairs and the United Nations. In both cases, the federal government has sold out our national sovereignty to external and internal special interests, none of which have our best interests in mind. I will address the foreign affairs aspects of this problem in another article some time in the future. In this article I will focus on the immigration side of the issue.

It seems as though pretty much every aspect of the immigration issue has serious problems. Border security, visa practices, social and cultural incompatibilities, and a host of other problems have made immigration, and therefore national sovereignty, a major issue of the current Presidential campaign. Make no mistake, any problem with immigration is a sovereignty problem, and any sovereignty problem is, by definition, a national security problem.

As we know, there are many types of visas issued to individuals allowing entry into the country for various reasons. Student, work, business and immigration visas are issued by the millions every year. I would venture to say that a significant percentage of these visas would not be issued if practical security concerns were being addressed. It is all too clear that in many, if not most, cases, these concerns are not even considered, let alone addressed in any meaningful way. This has to change if we wish to once again become a sovereign, secure and free nation.

I do not profess to be an expert on the visa system, all I know is, as it is the visa system of the United States is overly complicated and rife with abuse from within and without. I am not going to pretend I know how to fix it. All I know is a more practical and much more secure system is needed.

In order to be issued a visa to enter the United States for any reason, the individual seeking the visa should be required to show, in practical terms, how their entry in to the United States benefits the United States. If there is no demonstrable benefit to granting entry to an individual, why, then, should we grant it? Any visa should be held to this standard, immigration visas in particular. In fact I believe people wishing to emigrate to the United States should be required to demonstrate not only the ability to adapt to American culture, but an actual desire to do so. I believe student visas should be done away with all together, and work visas should only be issued through a guest worker program like the one described later in this article.

It is also necessary, even with these more stringent standards, to have an effective means of enforcing visa and immigration laws and regulations. Over staying a visa should be difficult, and enough of a risk to constitute a real deterrent. Yes, there will always be those who seek to cheat the system, but the harder that is to do, the less it will happen, and the easier it will be to police.

The real problem we have with our visa system is the central problem we have with all of our immigration and border issues: Lack of enforcement. We have sufficient laws on the books already to at least get things going in the right direction. Unfortunately, due to the incompetent negligence of the federal government in this area over the past several decades, we have a much bigger problem now than just the presence of people who do not belong here.

A series of subcultures have grown up around the immigration issue, and many of them are hostile to the United States. Many immigrants, legal and otherwise, have no interest in acculturating. In fact, many have, as their stated purpose, the goal of changing the United States to fit their cultural, philosophical and/or ideological purposes. This is not only intolerable, in may cases it is down right treasonous. Fortunately, it is readily remedied if the federal government will simply do its job.

I would proceed with a plan that really does constitute comprehensive immigration reform. I know most people, when they see the word “comprehensive” immediately go back to the so called “gang of eight” bill or other proposed legislation that is similar. No, that is not what I am talking about. When I say comprehensive, I mean we take a step by step approach that does first things first, then moves in a practical and methodical way toward enforcing the laws, and, if necessary, making changes to the laws in order to restore order and implement a practical and secure immigration system.

This plan must obviously begin with enforcement. Using federal, state and local resources, including, if necessary, the entire National Guard, a task force must be marshaled in order to execute the plan. Once all of that is in place, the plan, including the detailed time line, must be announced and published publicly so everyone can read and understand it. Once the announcement is made, sufficient assets should be deployed to the border to physically close it. Other ports of entry, such air and sea ports, must also be secured.

On a given date, say ninety days after the initial announcement, the federal, state and local government task force will begin a crackdown on companies and individuals who may be employing illegal workers. Meanwhile, in the intervening ninety days, anyone caught attempting to enter the country illegally will be identified, finger printed and then deported. These individuals will never, under any circumstances, be allowed entry into the United States.

Anyone caught during this period of time that is here illegally, but can show they are in the process of leaving on their own, will be allowed to do so without interference. At the end of the ninety day period, if an employer is caught with illegal workers on the payroll, they will loose their business license and will most likely be subject to criminal prosecution. Any person found in the country illegally after the ninety day period will be identified, finger printed and deported. These individuals, like those previously mentioned, will never be allowed entry into the United States.

This solution is not perfect, as it will probably require some emergency measures. Those subcultures mentioned above will probably take the opportunity to riot and cause as much trouble as possible. When this happens, it must be dealt with swiftly. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to put down a riot without violating the rights of the rioters. No one has a right to riot, so stopping them from doing so can not be a violation of their rights. This will necessarily be at the very least distasteful, and probably quite harsh, but the alternative would be unforgivable.

Once the enforcement portion of the plan has moved sufficiently forward, some changes to the structure of the Department of Homeland Security would be called for. I propose realigning a number of DHS agencies into a single agency responsible for border and airport security. The security of the seaways and seaports would remain the responsibility of the United States Coast Guard. This new agency, which for now I will call the “United States Home Guard” or USHG, would be created out of the current Border Patrol and Transportation Security Administration, TSA. In addition to those two agencies, assets and personnel of other agencies, such as the ATF, which serves no rational purpose, would be folded into the new USHG. In this way it is possible to have a significant increase in available personnel for security, without a significant increase in operational cost.

The USHG would be a hybrid military/law enforcement organization much the same as the Coast Guard is today. As the Coast Guard is structured much like the Navy, this organization would be structured much like the Army. Officers and Senior NCOs would be sworn peace officers. The USHG would be responsible for security of the border and all land based ports of entry such as border checkpoints and airports.

In addition to the security and enforcement aspects of the plan, the announcement mentioned above would also include details of a well regulated guest worker program to be initiated after our borders and ports of entry are secure. It would be necessary for nations wishing their citizens to be able to participate in this program to sign treaties prohibiting them from doing certain things, like dumping their “undesirable” citizens, or emptying their jails. In addition, they must also agree to participate in the vetting process, and allow the return of any worker returning to their country after participating in the program, no matter what the circumstances of his return.

This program would work through American embassies and consulates in those countries were such an agreement has been reached. The process would begin with employers in the United States. If an employer has a job opening, he must first make it available within the United States for a period of time, say thirty days. If no qualified person agrees to take the job in that period of time, then the employer may apply for a permit to submit that job to the guest worker program.

Workers in a given foreign country can go to their local consulate and apply for that job. When the worker makes an application he is first vetted. This includes fingerprinting. If the worker is qualified, has no record of illegal entry into the United States, has no criminal record, and is able to communicate sufficiently in English, then his application will be put through. If the employer agrees to hire the worker he is issued a temporary work visa that is good for that job in that location for one year.

It then becomes the responsibility of the employer to get the worker to the port of entry. Once there the worker is processed into the country. It then becomes the responsibility, again, of the employer to provide transportation from the port of entry to the place of employment. The employer is also responsible to insure the worker has access to adequate housing. The worker must be paid on the same scale as a local employee doing the same job. Both the employer and employee are subject to all federal, state and local laws just like anyone else, although the worker can not obtain a Social Security Card. The employee must have access to the same benefits as local employees, except for any benefit involving retirement. These guest workers will not be subject to medicare or social security taxes as they will not have access to those programs.

The guest worker must return to the same office in his home country every year to renew the guest worker visa. If he does not return to that office the visa is expired and thus void. If the employer does not wish to renew the workers employment the visa will also be voided. In this case, the worker may apply for other jobs which may be available, as long as he is still able to pass the vetting process. If a guest worker resigns, or is terminated or laid off, it is the responsibility of the employer to provide transportation to that employee through the port of entry.

If an employer finds a guest worker to be unsuitable for employment in the United States, he can file a report indicating such unsuitability through the program. This report must include specific information indicating the reason for a determination of unsuitability. This must then be reviewed by guest worker program officials, and if found to be legitimate, the guest worker may be barred from participation in the program, and could be barred from entry into the United States altogether. If the guest worker is involved in any criminal activity he will be deported, after serving any imposed sentence, and will never be allowed entry into the United States.

Implementation of such a plan will be difficult. There are state and local jurisdictions that believe national sovereignty is somehow a bad thing. It will be necessary to work around some of these jurisdictions. However it must also be made clear that anyone interfering with these operations will be met with criminal prosecution. Things like obstructing justice, interfering with the enforcement of duly enacted laws, and harboring fugitives are crimes and should be prosecuted accordingly. One benefit of this kind of operation is it will cause those who choose to be enemies of the United States and our constitution to come out into the open. There may, or may not, be anything we can do about it, due to the aforementioned constitution, but at least everyone will know who they are and what they really want.

Whether it is this plan or something different, the sovereignty of the nation can not be secured as long as this immigration and open border situation continues. The United States of America is a nation of free an sovereign individuals. The right to join us in this must be earned. It can not simply be given to anyone who makes it across the border. If we hope to remain free and sovereign as individuals, and as a nation, the immigration and border security problems we face must be positively addressed.

FacebookTwitterPinterestGoogle+EvernoteLinkedInWordPressLineStumbleUponRedditDeliciousTumblrYahoo BookmarksEmail

Taxes, Budgets and Borrowing

The federal government, as it is currently operated, is an unconstitutional morass of power hungry narcissistic megalomaniacs bent on feeding their own personal power and position to the exclusion of anything and everything else. In a previous post, I talked about Ted Cruz’s tax plan. I was a bit hard on it, and actually refereed to it as something on which I disagree. That is not to say I disapprove of the plan, but it has to be taken as a first step in a process designed to permanently fix the problems we have with pretty much all fiscal matters pertaining to the federal government.

Any plan going forward has to be part of a longer term plan designed to prepare the economy for the next phase of policy enactment. The first phase of this reform must include several changes to how the government operates from top to bottom.

Taxes must be lowered and flattened. We do not need to enact a permanent new tax plan such as the “Fair Tax” or the “Flat Tax.” Both of these plans have many things to commend them, but it is not time for that yet. Making some adjustments to the current tax structure will do for now, and it will be easier to get them enacted than trying to rewrite the whole tax code from scratch. Remember, this is a temporary fix so other things that need to happen can happen.

My recommendation is the creation of three tax brackets. Income from one dollar up to 65,000 dollars would be taxed at five percent. Income from 65,001 dollars to 180,000 dollars at ten percent, and everything over 180,000 dollars is taxed at fifteen percent. Now I know a lot of you out there are screaming that this will not raise nearly enough revenue for the federal government, but it is alright, I will be getting to that shortly.

In addition to this “flattening” of the tax code, a number of confiscatory taxes will be eliminated completely and permanently. The inheritance tax, capital gains tax, payroll tax, energy taxes of every kind, and myriad other taxes and “fees” will be completely and permanently eliminated. I know what many of you are thinking: “This will severally cut the amount of revenue collected by the federal government.” Yes, it will definitely do that! What it will also do is cause prices on just about everything to go down. The cost of producing, shipping, storing, distributing, selling and buying just about everything will go down. Things that cost less, happen more. The result of this plan on every aspect of the economy will be to increase all economic activity.

Company profits will increase, as will wages and salaries. This will happen everywhere. With incomes going up both as individual paychecks and corporate profits, federal revenues will go up as well. This may not seem sufficient, but when you factor in the next part of phase one, it starts to make a lot of sense.

The next part of phase one is really quite simple: Dismantle the federal leviathan. This may seem like a daunting task, but it really is not. It is quite simple to do, as long as you have people in office who understand the simple fact that it must be done. I am not going to go into explicit detail here, and it is not necessary to do so. I will give just a few examples that can be applied all over the federal government to eliminate most of the current expenditures.

Let us just take a look at one program: Medicaid. Granted, that is a big program. The 2014 medicaid budget was right around $340 billion, (although I have to say, nailing down an exact figure of just how much was spent on medicaid in 2014 seems impossible, and I suspect it was substantially more than that.) Now, suppose we just shut that department down? I mean close it permanently. What do you suppose would happen? Yes, I know, every liberal and uneducated person reading this just had their head explode. Let me ask you this then, when you go to get your medicaid benefits, where do you go? Do you go to a federal office? No, you go to a state or county office. So then, why are we sending hundreds of billions of dollars to Washington? Every state has a program! Why not just close down that massive, very expensive bureaucracy and stop collecting that money? Let the states collect it. Since they do not have to pay for that massive federal bureaucracy they can collect less.

Does that, or does that not make sense? The tax payer will pay a bit more in state taxes, but that should be more than offset by the amount they are no longer paying in federal taxes. Our example of the federal medicaid program is just one item. What happens when we do the same thing with other federal programs, agencies and departments that work the same way? The Department of Education, most of the rest of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Departments of Energy, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development and many more could be completely done away with as they really serve no legitimate function at the federal level.

Here and there you would find a program that might be, in and of itself, useful and legitimate at the federal level. Once the leviathan is dismantled, you can then go back and consolidate and reform what is left. Because of the nature of these departments, particularly those like HHS and Education that have state and even local level counterparts, the transition would be essentially seamless if handled properly. Another good example is the Veterans Administration.

This department does not work. Why do we have, and have to pay for, a massive bureaucracy and actual brick and mortar hospitals and medical facilities? It costs way too much, and, as anyone who has ever been to the VA can tell you, it does not work. If we just allow our veterans to go to their own doctors and have the VA pay the bill, it would cost a lot less and serve our veterans infinitely better.

As we dismantle the excessive government and unleash the economy, we will start seeing benefits as a matter of course. Among these benefits will be our ability to stop borrowing money. Going forward, as government continues to shrink and the economy, and the ensuing revenues to government, continue to grow, we would eventually come to the point were we can not only service the debt, we can actually retire it.

We also have a couple of destructive progressive era issues that we will necessarily have to deal with. First, is the Federal Reserve. The federal reserve is a nightmare that has to go away. The constitution grants authority to congress to “coin money and regulate the value thereof.” The congress, especially under these new rules, will be completely accountable, and that is the point. Right now, with the way the Fed works, there is no accountability, none. Our entire economy, and much of the world’s economy, is subject to the whim of one person: the fed chairman. This is completely unacceptable.

The other problem we have from the progressive era is the sixteenth amendment. This amendment to the constitution does not belong there. It is at its very essence contrary to everything the constitution stands for. This is the infamous “progressive” income tax amendment. It is what has allowed our tax code to become so monstrous that no one really knows what is in it or how it works. Once our debt is under control, this less than useful amendment should be superseded by another amendment that forces accountability and sanity on the federal government. It should be this, or something very much like it:

Section 1. The federal government of the United States shall adopt only one method of internal revenue collection from the domestic private sector economy. This method shall be a consumption tax imposed on items purchased at retail in the private sector except for rental payments on a private residence, unprepared food, transportation fuels, energy and communication utilities, medicines, medical treatments and, medical consumables, supplies and appliances.

Section 2. Congress may establish by law import duties and imposts, and may provide for fines imposed as criminal sentences as the result of due process of law in part or in full as they deem appropriate. Such revenues collected by the federal government must be applied to the budget or any outstanding debt, and the tax rate adjusted accordingly.

Section 3. The rate of taxation for any fiscal year must be calculated to raise only enough revenue to satisfy the expenditure of the enacted budget for the same fiscal year based on revenues raised the previous year and the size of the national economy in that same previous year. This calculation must be taken only after any previous year surplus, or possible deficit, is applied to the budget of the fiscal year for which the tax rate is calculated, but at no time may the tax rate exceed ten percent.

Section 4. The congress must pass and the president must sign into law a budget for the federal government before the first day of the fiscal year for which that budget is enacted. For each day beyond the first day of any fiscal year a budget is not enacted all members of congress and the president shall forfeit all compensations due them as a result of employment by the federal government, and their collective staffs shall be barred from work without remuneration of any kind for the duration of the period of any fiscal year for which a budget is not enacted.

Section 5. The budget of the federal government shall not exceed the budget of the previous fiscal year by more, as a percentage, than the rate of growth of the national economy in that previous year, but at no time may the budget increase by more than ten percent.

Section 6. Each budgetary item must include language defining successful implementation and must identify milestones to be achieved at predefined time intervals throughout the fiscal year. Each budgetary item must also include language indicating from where in the constitution the federal government derives authority to engage in the activity pursued in the item in question, and data indicating financial justification for the expenditure related to the specific item.

Section 7. Any surplus of funds remaining at the end of any fiscal year must be applied to any valid debt of the federal government. If there is no debt, or if there are still surplus funds after the debt is paid, not less than ninety percent of the surplus must be applied to the budget of the next fiscal year. Not more than ten percent of any surplus may be sequestered by congress for the purpose of emergency response. Such funds, once sequestered, may only be used in the event of a national emergency, which is defined as any form of attack, insurrection or natural disaster.

Section 8. The congress may not incur debt except in response to a national emergency as defined in the previous section and requires two thirds majority of both houses of congress and the concurrence of the president. Any debt incurred may not exceed ten percent of the budget of the current fiscal year, and must be paid in full by the end of the following fiscal year.

Section 9. In the event of an emergency representing a direct and immediate threat to the solvency or sovereignty of the United States, or a congressional declaration of war, the congress may take any action with respect to debt necessary and is directed to insure the safety of the people, the survival of the republic, the authority of this constitution and, the independence, solvency and sovereignty of the United States of America including all states, territories and, lands, nations and peoples with whom there are duly ratified treatise of that effect.

Section 10. If such debt, beyond ten percent, is incurred, congress may add one percent to the current tax rate and to the tax rate of subsequent fiscal years until the debt is repaid, but at no time shall the total tax rate exceed ten percent. This additional percentage shall not be included in tax rate calculations for subsequent years. Tax rates and revenues shall be calculated without inclusion of the additional tax, if an additional tax is still required, it should be added to the calculated tax for the fiscal year in question.

Section 11. No debt incurred by the United States federal government shall be held in bond or otherwise by any foreign government or entity. The federal government may not loan, grant or give in subsidy any funds whatever to any private enterprise except with respect to not for profit, educational or other academic or scientific institutions engaged in research or other activities in which the federal government or promotion of the general welfare of the nation has a direct interest.

Okay, so what does this do? Let me take you through, one section at a time, and lay out exactly what this will do to the federal government, and the national economy:

Section one simply states that the federal government may have only one method of taxing the domestic economy, and that that method is a sales tax. It is not a VAT, or value added tax, it is a straight up sales tax on items purchased at retail. It then excepts certain specific classes of items. These exceptions have a couple of different purposes. Firstly, they will have a positive effect on commerce all over the country. By exempting energy and communications you automatically decrease the cost of everything that is produced or transported in the United States. Unprepared food is a no brainer, it is customary in the United States that these items are not taxed. Anything having to do with health care from major surgery to a bottle of aspirin is not taxed. In addition, it also exempts rent payments on a private residence. Along with benefiting the economy, these exemptions have another very important effect. What do low income households spend most of their money on? Rent, food, utilities, healthcare and putting gas in their car, if they have one. All of these things are exempted from the tax. Now, in addition to paying less for these items, they also have no tax burden associated with them.

Section two provides the federal government with authority to impose import duties and imposts on goods imported into the United States, and to impose fines for those convicted of breaking federal laws. It then requires any funds collected through these methods be applied to any outstanding debt, or to the budget, and the tax rate be adjusted, or lowered accordingly.

Section three describes how the tax is to be calculated. Once a budget is in place the first thing that happens is the surplus from the previous year is applied to the new budget, thus lowering the amount of money needed to meet the budget requirement. Then the tax can be calculated based on revenues raised the previous year. What this basically means is, you have to set the tax rate based on how much revenue you collected last year, and the size of the economy that year, in order to collect enough to cover the budget, minus any surplus brought forward. It also means that if you have any growth at all in the economy over the course of the year, you will end up with a surplus. Theoretically the tax rate should go down almost every year, though not by very much. In reality, some years will be better than others, and it is even possible to end up with a small deficit, but that would simply be added to the following year’s budget just as any surplus would be.

Section four simply states that a budget must be passed for any fiscal year before the first day of that fiscal year. If a budget is not passed and signed by the fist day of any fiscal year, the congress and President forfeit their paychecks, and their respective staffs are laid off without pay until a budget is enacted.

Section five stipulates that the budget of any year may not increase by more than the rate of growth of the national economy of the previous year. So if the economy grows at a rate of eight percent in 2020, then the 2021 budget may not be more than eight percent larger than the 2020 budget, but may not grow by more than ten percent regardless of the previous years rate of growth. If the 2020 economy grows at eleven percent, the budget for 2021 may only be ten percent larger than the 2020 budget.

Section six provides for the all important need for accountability. It forces congress to show from where in the constitution they derive authority to engage in whatever activity the given budget item engages in. It further requires congress to show financial justification for each dollar spent. It also requires congress to include standards of success with each item. This means there has to be a schedule of how often the item in question must be reviewed, and an idea of where it should be at that time. This basically means that congress has to go back and review what it does on a given time line, and have predetermined measures of success associated with the given budget item.

Section seven specifies what should be done with any surplus funds left over at the end of any fiscal year. First, any funds must be applied to any outstanding debt of the federal government. If there is no debt, or if any money is left over after paying the debt, then whatever is left can only be used for two things. 1. Not less than ninety percent must be applied to the budget of the following year. 2. Not more than ten percent may be sequestered off budget to be used only in response to national emergencies. If the ten percent is not used in this way, then it must also be applied to the following years budget.

Section eight severely limits the ability of the federal government go to into debt, and forces any debt incurred to be paid in full by the end of the following year.

Sections nine and ten provide for an additional ability of the government to incur debt, but only in the event of direct and immediate threats to the very existence of the United States, and provides for repayment of such additional debts.

Section eleven states that in the event that the federal government goes into debt, it can not, under any circumstances, be to any foreign government or entity. It also states that the federal government not loan any money, nor give any money in subsidy to for any reason, but makes exception for non-profit or educational institutions engaged in activities that would directly benefit the nation as a whole. For instance, if there is a university that is on the verge of curing cancer, but is running out of money, it would be appropriate for the federal government to step up and help them out as it would obviously benefit everyone. This is what the constitution means by “promote the general welfare.”

The only problem with this proposed amendment is it can not happen while we are twenty trillion dollars in debt. That is why we will have to enact more limited changes first. I am sure there are many things that could be done, or done differently, besides what I have here. I believe this, or something very much like it, is needed in order for the economy of the nation to reach its potential. In any case, it is critical that something be done about the way the federal government handles fiscal matters. A strict structure and accountability are sorely needed. I hope I have at least given some food for thought on the subject.

FacebookTwitterPinterestGoogle+EvernoteLinkedInWordPressLineStumbleUponRedditDeliciousTumblrYahoo BookmarksEmail

Dear Black Professor

This is my response to Professor George Yancy of Emory University’s open letter entitled:Dear White America

Dear Professor Yancy,

I hesitate to dignify your thinly veiled bigotry with any comment, but there are a few things I believe need to be said. Before I directly address the content of your letter, let me talk about perceptions for a moment.

From your letter I have to conclude that you, as a black man, believe that my thoughts, opinions and actions, as a white man, are informed by the color of my skin. I must further conclude the reason you believe this is because you believe, at least as it pertains to this, that you and I are the same. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We, at least the vast majority of us, left that kind of thinking behind a very long time ago, but much to our dismay, we seem to be the only people on the planet that have. Some years ago I tried to write a book. I did not have a lot of success with it. I got it written, but it was time sensitive, and I was not able to get it edited and published before timing made it irrelevant. I simply could not afford it, so much for white privilege. In any case, in that book I wrote something I hope you will contemplate:

The primary problem we have in race relations today is the idea of race relations itself. As long as people continue to insist on relating to one another on the basis of race, we will continue to have problems.

You state in your letter that you want us to listen with love. As opposed to what? That you have the perception we do not, or would not, do that by default indicates to me you have no knowledge of the subject you write about. Again, we are not like you. I am not familiar with any of the people you listed as your interviews, but I have to conclude that none of them are anything like me. I am an American.

From the second paragraph of your letter, I can only assume you simply do not pay attention to anything except that which comes from your side of the political spectrum. That is a shame. Let me give you some names of prominent Americans from my side of the spectrum who live that kind of love every single day: Lila Rose, Col. Allan West, Sen. Ted Cruz, Rush Limbaugh, Gov. Greg Abbott and Sheriff David Clarke. Yes, that is right! It is all the people you love to hate the most. Interesting, is it not?

I know exactly what your next thought is: “West and Clarke are only there as token blacks.” It always has to be about race, does it not? No, that is not why they are there. Their ethnicity is of no consequence. Their behavior is what is consequential, to them, to me, to this issue, and to this discussion. These are two American men who have dedicated their lives to public service, and have done so with honesty, integrity, grace and dignity. These men are true leaders who have accepted and subsequently fulfilled those responsibilities in a manner that has earned them the highest respect and admiration from millions of Americans. You, quite frankly, are not fit to shine their boots.

White innocence? Again, you have a glaring mis-perception. There is no white “innocence.” To the degree that it may exist for some is as much a nonsensical political construct as white “guilt.” I am stricken with neither. I would recommend you take your own advice and quiet your soul and listen carefully. We have no choice but to hear your message. It is shouted at us everywhere we look, and has been for decades. Most of it seems to be nothing more than totalitarian political propaganda. In any case, whether we like to or not, we are listening, and very carefully. While we are not quite so vociferous with our message, at least not yet, we would appreciate the same consideration. You could learn a lot from an American.

As to your admission of sexism, I suppose you would know. Or would you? I am not sexist. I know this because I am aware of something that you apparently are not. It is something your progressive masters do not want you to know because it would expose their true agenda. It is difficult for you to understand because you have been trained otherwise, though you may not realize it.

Here is the secret: The terms “equal” and “same” are not synonymous. Both of these terms have separate and different definitions. Once you understand this in context, your sexism and racism will fall away just as mine did. What really happens is you are forced to realize most of what is called sexism and racism today is neither. You will recognize it for what it really is: political propaganda. Everyone in a free society must be equal, but can not all be the same, it just does not work that way. What the progressive ideology sells as equality is really sameness. That is why it will never work, even if you force people to be “the same” eventually the system will break down and fall apart. If you do not believe me, just ask a Russian Soviet.

You see, professor, your intentions are really the only thing you can control. If you respect another individual and behave accordingly, that really is all you can do. You can not make yourself responsible for someone else’s mis-perceptions. It is important to understand that while men and women are equal in many ways, we are not the same. We are not supposed to be. The design, whatever its origin, is different, and it is that way for a reason.

I have to say, I really do love the way you go after Hollywood movies, pornography, video games and commercials for objectifying women. All of those, well most of them, I am not sure about the pornographers, are bastions of progressive thought. No one of consequence has assumed women are inferior in a very long time, at least not that I am aware of, and certainly not in my culture. The very suggestions is a strong indicator that you have a limited grasp on reality, which is not surprising as you are obviously a progressive, or worse.

As you might have guessed, I am not what you would call a “good” white person, or a liberal white person, and I am not on any hook. I did not vote for Obama. I also did not vote for John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale or Jimmy Carter. The insinuation that I did not vote for Obama because he is black is a despicable and asinine statement that places the label of racist squarely on your forehead, and for no good reason! If you are not aware that the whole “racist” thread surrounding Obama is not about race at all, then you are likely nothing more than a useful idiot, which prompts the question: How did you get this job? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is all too clear.

Do you really see yourself as living under the yolk of my “whiteness?” My goodness! Do you have any respect for yourself at all? Forget about being black for a moment, and just be a man. Can you do that? Now, before you read the next paragraph, think about what manhood means to you. What is it that makes you or me or any human male a man? Get a clear definition in your mind before you read on.

Now that you have thought about it, and have a clear definition, compare it to this: The personal acceptance of complete responsibility for yourself and everything for which you are responsible. In your letter you attempt to take responsibility for your “sexism,” yet at the same time you actually make a pretty good case for your not being sexist. Stop conflating nature and politics. As I said before, your intentions are the only thing you have any real control over. You are not responsible for other people’s mis-perceptions, even of they are injured by them. If we are to be held responsible for other people’s mis-perceptions, then we all might as well just shoot ourselves right now, because there is no getting out of this.

So what is this “talk” you give to your kids about being confronted by white police officers? Do you tell them to be respectful and do exactly what they are told by any police officer? Or do you tell them to despise the police because they will shoot you first chance they get, especially if they are white? Does it ever occur to you telling them that might cause them to respond inappropriately, or even violently when confronted by police? In case you are not aware, behavior of that kind by anyone in that situation is likely to get them shot. If behaving in a certain way, i.e. threatening or violent, will get you shot, then perhaps instead of blaming the police, or “whitey” or some other fantasy villain, you should just teach your children to behave responsibly and treat everyone they meet with respect. That kind of behavior is a lot less likely to get them shot. Yes, I am aware that there are some bad cops out there. I have been the victim of their abuse as well, so much for white privilege.

Also, what is this stuff about being followed around when you go into a store? I have worked management in retail stores before. If you are being followed around by employees in a store you might want to review your behavior. That is what gets you into trouble. If you are teaching your kids to expect trouble, they will inevitably find it. The whole part of your letter that deals with this is moronic. If you go looking for trouble, or behave like you are trouble, do not blame others when you find it.

While in that position, I “busted” several shop lifters of every creed and color you can imagine, including black, most all of them were of high school or college age. Yes, on several occasions the black kids complained about being followed around, “you’re just doing this because I’m black.” This, in an environment were there are several other black folks around, many of the same age group, none of which are being followed or bothered in any way. Of course the final insult to my intelligence is that once the “bust” is concluded, and the thief is revealed as such, they are still complaining that it is only because they are black. This is the argument of an idiot, and you taught it to them.

My kids are grown now, and I do not have to imagine for a moment that they are black. Why would I do that? Why would it matter? If my kids were black I would teach them and love them exactly the same as I did and do. I think toward the end there you really show how truly ignorant you are about everything you have written about. A system that “continues to value black lives on the cheap?” What a self victimizing load of bullshit! Stop victimizing yourself. Your children hate white people and cops because you taught them to. The resulting behavior, and the response of the civilized society to it, is on you. This is all on you.

The system is this: “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Your system leaves me no way out of being racist, just because I am white. That is probably the most racist attitude anyone has ever espoused in all of recorded history. My society was crated by me, but not specifically for me. It was created for everyone. Granted, it took longer than it should have to finally get there, but get there it did, and quite some time ago.

Professor, what you are a victim of primarily is your own ignorance, but that is not all. You are still trying to fight battles in a war you won decades ago. I stated before that the only thing you can control is your own intentions. Actually, that is not entirely true. There is one other thing only you can control. It is something for which you will eventually be held accountable, just like the rest of us: Your behavior.

When a cop shoots someone, anyone, it is usually because of that person’s behavior. Granted, that is not always the case, but it is in the vast majority of cases. So what is it? What is the root cause of all the unacceptable behavior? Why the riots, the flash mob robberies, the shootings and beatings of people because they are white? The wanton destruction of your own communities? And what about this “Black Lives Matter” group? Have you listened to some of the stuff they say? Most people are not going to be interested in a movement that seems to be based on a failed political ideology and other nonsense. These collage kids, and this is not racial as it seems most all of them are afflicted, seem to have no grasp on reality at all. None of this would be happening if you had not taught it to them.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but I guess I am elected. Your problem is your own behavior. Those things mentioned above are not compatible with a civilized society. Neither are they worthy of your humanity. Do you understand what I am saying here? My society is not white, it is American. What we are trying to do is conduct a civilization. It is open to everyone. All we ask is that you conduct yourself in a civilized manner. That means following the rules, respecting each individual just as you would have them respect you, even if they do not, and respecting the system for what it really is.

The real problem you have is your adherence to this asinine progressive ideology. This ideology is what has happened to you. I had nothing to do with it. To some it almost seems as though you are happy to go back to slavery, as long as you can take the rest of us with you. You have been listening to the wrong people. You are being used. I think it is you who has to open his mind and his heart.

In the final analysis, there really is only one issue: Freedom. Freedom is not a government program. It is simply a political and legal environment wherein the individual has the right to exercise his or her personal authority as necessary to fulfill his or her responsibilities without interference. This does not come from government, government is only a construct designed to facilitate it. At least that is the way it is supposed to be in America.

I think the majority of Americans simply go out and try to treat anyone they meet with the same respect as anyone else. In the end that is all we can do. In many instances, your behavior makes that impossible. That is on you. Reality is what it is, it does not change just because you can not figure it out, but if you do not figure it out soon, it might very well leave you behind. I am not responsible for your problems, and I certainly do not owe you anything. You are entitled to no more or less respect as an individual than anyone else, and nothing more. Everything else you have to earn.

Your best option is to join us in America. It is easier than you seem to think. The door is closed, but it is not locked. Stop trying to kick it in, that will never work. Just turn the knob and walk through. You will be welcomed with open arms just like everyone else. It is your only really viable option. If you continue down the self destructive road you are on now it will eventually catch up with you. This is an oppression of your own making. We can not save you this time, you will have to save yourselves.

FacebookTwitterPinterestGoogle+EvernoteLinkedInWordPressLineStumbleUponRedditDeliciousTumblrYahoo BookmarksEmail

Ted Cruz and I Have One Minor Disagreement

That disagreement is on his tax plan. A 10% across the board flat tax for individuals, and a 16% flat tax on corporations sounds good, especially compared to what we have had to endure since the passage of the 16th amendment in 1913, but it still falls short in my opinion. Although I will stipulate right now that it is a very large step in the right direction.

What are these numbers based on? Why 10% and 16%? I suspect these numbers were plugged into a formula and were arrived at by tweaking them until everything ads up to a reasonable sum. I get that, and that is the way things have worked for decades. The problem is we need change that is more basic than that. Everything about the way the federal government taxes, spends and borrows has to change.

In fact, taxing spending and borrowing must be inexorably tied together so none of them over load the others. In the coming days I hope to be able to publish my plan right here on my blog. My plan involves a fundamental change in the way the federal government operates on every level. Any plan that is going to work long term has to address not only the taxing side of the equation, but the spending and borrowing as well. In order to do that fundamental change has to happen at every level of the federal government.

I know we have heard that before, and the fundamental change that has taken place in the current administration should probably result in significant indictments of many administration officials past and present, including the President himself. My idea of fundamental change is not like that. In order to understand where I am going with this all you have to do is read the United States Constitution. It is all in there, and I look forward to spelling out just how it applies to the federal government in the near future.

FacebookTwitterPinterestGoogle+EvernoteLinkedInWordPressLineStumbleUponRedditDeliciousTumblrYahoo BookmarksEmail

There is No Gay Marriage

At the moment I suppose the consensus in the country is that “gay marriage” is a done deal. I find that interesting, especially when you consider that such an arrangement is literally and completely impossible. It is true that recent polls show a majority of Americans agree with the idea, but if you factor out the “I don’t really care” and “go along to get along” people I imagine it would come out to something like two to one against. This is not, and never has been, a popular idea, not that that matters in any possible way.

For all the time it raged the argument over this issue centered on the definition of marriage. An interesting concept, but no one apparently bothered to ask the central question: What is the definition of marriage? Since the question was never really asked in the general discussion, it was answered by people with a particular agenda either for or against, and hence was never really answered honestly. The reality is there is a simple and essential definition of marriage that constrains anything anyone might want to call marriage. It is simply this:

“The joining of two or more different parts, which fit together by design, to form a whole.”

First, let us stipulate that in the context of a human relationship there are only two parts. How one chooses to label oneself is irrelevant. This is about biology and physics, orientation and politics are immaterial. The human race is composed entirely of males and females. There is nothing else.

There are several key things one might notice about this definition. This is not a legal definition. Neither is it based on any moral or religious code or dogma. It is, in fact, an immutable and indisputable law of nature. There are no, and can never be any, arguments against it in this universe. There does not exist in any place or time in this universe the possibility that two people of the same gender can be married to one another. There simply is no way to do it.

As this is obviously the case, why then are we consumed with this issue? Well, it is very simple really, in fact it is the oldest trick in the book: divide and conquer. As with most progressive initiatives, this started out with a legitimate issue: equal protection under the law. In an effort to rectify this problem the concept of the civil union was developed and, while there was some opposition, it was soon adopted by cities, states, and even private enterprise throughout the country. This did, in fact, though not the ideal solution, solve the problem. Then again, that depends on what you thought the problem was.

Unfortunately, progressives do not see things the way the rest of us do. Equal protection was not the problem they were trying to solve, and the relative ease with which civil unions were adopted and accepted was problematic for them. They were not looking to address the legal matter, they just wanted to cause trouble, and this did not have that effect, at least not to the degree they had hoped. If you go back and look, you might notice that as soon as civil unions were accepted, they started in almost immediately on “gay marriage.” This is not by accident. They did not really want to go there, but by being reasonable and understanding that there really was a constitutional problem to be addressed, we left them no choice.

This practice is a standard operating procedure for progressives, and it continues to go on on many fronts. The “battle for equal rights” for women was resoundingly won by the end of the 1970’s. Why are they still fighting it? The battle for civil rights was resoundingly won by Dr. King and his followers in the 1960’s. Why are they still fighting it? Along the way other battles were won.

Environmental battles in particular were won with resounding success, but they are still being fought every day. The cost of these continued battles is overwhelming. It is one of the main reasons our economic and social order are in such chaos, which is, of course, the goal. Whenever a progressive takes up a cause you will find that sooner or later their actions will continue on once the initial issue has been addressed. The reason for this is these issues, these causes, are nothing more than a means to an end: power. It is no different with the issue of “gay marriage.”

Most of these battles hinge on the concept of equal rights. Upon close inspection however, one inevitably finds that what they are really fighting for is not equality under the law, which is what is guaranteed in the fourteenth amendment to the constitution, but sameness. Everyone is supposed to be the same. The reason for this is quite simple: bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator and they are much easier to control. Whether it is progressive immigration policies, education policies, fiscal policies, or just about any other domestic policy you want to look at, it is the same. Tyranny is the only end goal that fits this scenario. Their foreign policy seems to be geared toward weakening the country so their allies abroad have an easier time doing the same thing to their own people. Allies like Iran, the Muslim brotherhood and ISIS.

This sameness doctrine can be recognized very easily in the arguments and issues surrounding the “gay marriage” question. One of the arguments is that men and women are the same. This is, on its face, an idiotic notion, but there are millions of people who actually believe it. The truth is, men and women are different. Progressives know this. They are not trying to help anyone but themselves. It started in the 1960’s with the “women’s liberation” movement. As I stated before, there were some issues at that time which needed to be addressed, and since have been. But addressing those issues was not the goal of the progressives. Their goal was to drive a wedge between men and women, and they did so with great success.

The fact is, men and women are very different, and we are not just talking about the obvious physical differences. We are also different psychologically and emotionally. Those physical, psychological, and emotional differences are what make it possible for us to be married. Since the 1960’s we have been taught by the progressives that many of those differences are antagonistic. Not only are these differences compatible, they are actually sympathetic. They, of course, left the physical differences in play, but only to the degree needed to advance another destructive agenda.

The result has been the utter destruction of the moral center of the nation. Divorce used to be a rare thing, now about fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce. Why? Because they are not real marriages. Both men and women are entering marriage with self centered agendas that preclude the possibility of a successful marriage. Right now the national pastime is not baseball as most people think, and the most watched spectator sport is not football, which is the general consensus. Both of those activities have been replaced in those position by the same thing: sex.

I recently saw a photo online of a young women with a big smile holding up a sign that read “Proud Slut.” I have seen several instances where young women vociferously objected to being “slut shamed.” I am not sure these women understood what was happening. No one, at least no one with any credibility, is trying to “slut shame” anyone. What we are trying to do is simply ascertain why they are not ashamed. These women seem to have gotten the idea that by being recognized as a slut they have won some kind of victory. In reality all they have done is declare proudly to the world that they have absolutely no respect for themselves.

Understand that the difference between a “lady” and a “slut” is not so much the sex as it is the publicity. That said, women should also understand that the intimacy of a woman is the must valuable, most precious and most beautiful thing in all creation. Why would you want to give it away like Halloween candy? I know that many of you believe that since I am a man I am not really qualified to make such a value judgment. The truth is exactly the opposite.

This trend toward amorality is most visible in the gay community. Many different ethnic and cultural groups across the country have pride parades. The gay community is the only one with pride parades that consist to great degree of naked or nearly naked people marching up and down the street. If we are to call our society a civilization, this can not be acceptable. In any civilized society it is incumbent upon the members of that society to show a minimum level of respect for the other members of it, even if not for themselves. So to all you sluts out there, gay or straight, please try to have at least some respect for everyone else, even if you have none for yourself.

So how do we fix this? How do we have a civilized society and find a way to respect the rights of others to be who they are? First, everyone needs to understand that respect is, and has always been, a two way street. The gay community will never receive the respect it wants until it shows some kind of respect to everyone else by keeping their private matters private.

By the way, I know a lot of gay people think that karma is about revenge, or getting even. I have seen it presented that way in several places. Karma is about justice, not revenge. If you do not know the difference, please stay out of the discussion. As it is, you are sewing a lot of bad karma right now.

Earlier in this post I wrote about the concept of the civil union, also known as a domestic partnership. I also indicated that while this does, strictly speaking, satisfy the legal requirements of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, it is not really the best solution. The reason I believe this is because it takes us back to the issue of “separate, but equal.” This concept has been roundly rejected by the courts and by the society in general, as well it should. While one group gets a domestic partnership the other group gets a marriage license, both intended to have, legally speaking, the same result. This is problematic for a lot of reasons, not the lest of which is the one mentioned above, but there are other problems with it.

As I thought about this I was forced to make some interesting conclusions. My wife and I recently celebrated out twenty fifth wedding anniversary. Yes, we do have a marriage license issued by the County of Los Angeles. If they were to revoke our marriage license today, would we be any less married tomorrow? No. That action would in no way have any effect on our marriage beyond the legal issues, and while they are important, they do not in any way define, or even indicate, whether or not we are married. We are not married because the government gave us a license. In fact, I think it is quite arrogant of any government entity, especially in this country, to assume they have the authority to have any say in the matter of a marriage between a consenting man and woman, or a relationship between any two consenting adults for that matter. The only legitimate reason for it is to record with the government that a spousal relationship exists so the attending legal matters can be addressed.

There are myriad legal matters that attend to a spousal relationship. Things like tax law, spousal rights in health or even life and death issues, etc. The question is, why do we need a “license” when a simple document recording is all that is required?

At this point I think it is important to make some distinctions. The terms “husband” and “wife” are gender specific terms that are applicable only in a marriage between a man and a woman. The word “spouse” is a gender neutral term which can reasonably be applied to any spousal relationship. I would submit that in order to be a husband two things must be true: 1. You are a man. 2. You have a wife. Likewise, in order to be a wife the opposite must be true: 1. You are a woman. 2. You have a husband. On the other hand, the only thing you need to be a spouse is a spouse. I say this because I think it is counter productive, and in fact, down right destructive, to try to force changes to the language especially if it is in pursuit of some asinine political agenda. Instead, we need to use the language in its proper form for the sake of clarity, even if for nothing else.

What is needed is a system that provides for equal protection under the law for any spousal relationship without running afoul of the “separate but equal” problem, and without pretending like it has any effect on, or is in any way related to, the institution of marriage. I submit that we need to create a system wherein two people can draft a spousal contract and record it just as you would a marriage license or domestic partnership agreement. These contracts would specifically use the term “spouse” exclusively. Such contracts could be more than just spousal statements, they could include other information as well, like prenuptial agreements, etc.

It is incumbent upon all of us to at least try to restrain our rhetoric and, indeed, our actions to the realm of reality. The concept of “gay marriage” is one that is well outside of that realm. There just is not any way to do it. We must also keep in mind that equal protection under the law only applies to the laws created by us through our legislative systems. It does not apply to anything else. If a constitutional amendment were passed stating that I am a bald eagle it might be, strictly speaking, legally binding, but when I try to fly off of the roof of my apartment building it will definitely end badly. Such is the case with “gay marriage.”

It may seem to progressives, and everyone else at the moment, that a great progressive victory has been won. That is not the case. Nothing has been won. Something that can not exist, will not stand, all the wishful thinking in the world notwithstanding.

FacebookTwitterPinterestGoogle+EvernoteLinkedInWordPressLineStumbleUponRedditDeliciousTumblrYahoo BookmarksEmail