Lying Liars and Their Lying Lies

Since the last GOP debate in South Carolina, the tenor of the campaign has become rather childish. At the center of all this is the worlds richest teenager, Donald Trump. Yes, Marco Rubio also called Ted Cruz a liar, but what Cruz has said about Rubio and the “Gang of Eight” bill is true. I do not have to look this up, I remember it quite vividly, it was only a couple of years ago. So, the fact of the matter is, Rubio is a liar. He has lied about his record on immigration, and he has demonstrably lied about Ted Cruz’s record on immigration. Marco Rubio was one of the “Gang of Eight.” That was an amnesty bill, and everyone knows it. Ted Cruz was instrumental in killing that bill, and everyone knows that too.

Marco Rubio currently has a commercial about how he outsmarted the Democrats on Obamacare. Really? So Obamacare is gone now? No, but it has been weakened, yes? No. Nothing has happened to Obamacare, so what is Rubio talking about? On the other hand, Ted Cruz actually stood up and tried to stop the funding of Obamacare at great risk to himself. Few Senators stood with him on this, and the fact is, Marco Rubio was not one of them. Ted Cruz created an opportunity for the Senate to de-fund Obamacare rendering it useless, but Senate Republicans, including Marco Rubio, refused to act, and Obamacare was funded. Now, it is running a muck through our economy and tearing family budgets apart.

Marco Rubio should be ashamed of himself, and so should his supporters like Tim Scott, Rick Santorum, Trey Gowdy and even Nikki Haley. Stand down, Senator Rubio, you are not ready for the Oval Office, not by a long shot.

Now, as for Mr. Trump, I believe this phenomena can be explained a couple of different ways. In either case, what it amounts to is simply this: Trump is not who anyone thinks he is. Trump is simply a conduit for the people’s anger. That is all this phenomena is. It is nothing more. That is why he can call Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush liars when everyone, even most of his supporters, know it is not true. Not one single person has come forward to complain that they changed their vote from Carson to Cruz. Not one. Trump is lying about this. The person Trump supporters want for President is running, but it is not Donald Trump. Unfortunately, these folks are not thinking, they are doing the same thing most Democrats do: They are letting their emotions make the decision for them. Needless to say, this does not bode well for the future of the nation.

There really is only one candidate who has the right temperament, knowledge, experience and philosophy to be our next President. If we really want “A New American Century,” if we really want to “Make America Great Again,” we need to go with what made America great to begin with: The United States Constitution.

All the rhetoric and propaganda in the world changes nothing in the face of reality, and reality is not good right now. Our economy is a shambles. Our military is being emasculated. We are showing fear and weakness to our enemies, and to our friends! A political ideology that is incompatible with our values, not to mention civilization itself, is in ascendance all over the world. All of this is being supported in one way or another by our own government. In fact, at this point it is safe to say that our own federal government has become the domestic enemy our forefathers warned us about.

Right now, we are in the midst of the most consequential election campaign perhaps in the history of the nation. The question in this election is not the one most people seem to be asking. This is not about socialism, or conservatism, or Republicans and Democrats. It is about something much more fundamental than any of those things. This election is about freedom. Not whether or not we will have freedom, but whether or not we can secure it at the ballot box, and not have to take more extreme measures. For those who scoff at this statement, let me be clear: Those of us Americans who are American will be free. There is no way to stop it.

The Democrats have put up two candidates, but neither of them has any hope of becoming the next President. More and more people are realizing every day that what has happened to this country during the Obama administration was done deliberately. The answer is simple. It is what I said before: The United States Constitution. We need a President who not only knows the constitution backward and forward, but also believes in it, and will definitely fight to apply it to the federal government the way it is supposed to be applied.

When Donald Trump and Marco Rubio talk about what they will do for the country they point to themselves, while Ted Cruz points to the constitution. If we want our nation righted again, if we want our liberty, our security and our sovereignty faithfully defended, we can not take our eye off of that target. None of these men or women running for President is the answer to our problems. The constitution is. We have to go with the one candidate who has always understood that: Ted Cruz for President. There is just too much at stake to settle for anyone else. #TedCruz2016

Rebuilding the United States Army

AIRBORNE!It has to be painfully obvious to anyone with any knowledge of national defense issues that the United States Army, like the rest of the armed forces, is in dire need of a complete, top to bottom, restructuring. The current structure has evolved, over time, in an effort to maintain readiness and combat capabilities while almost constantly shrinking in size. As a result, while each individual unit boasts an impressive array of capabilities, they are too small, and there simply are not enough of them to respond adequately to many potential threats.

My personal view of the armed forces is it would be ideal to have the capability to “kick ass everywhere, all the time.” Obviously this level of capability would be impractical in even the most favorable economic environment. It is, however, well within our ability to field an Army more than capable of dealing decisively with any threat we are likely to encounter. This also creates an environment where our enemies, or any potential enemies, are too terrified of the consequences to consider challenging us. Do not tell me it can not be done, we have done it before, and more than once.

I know the first thing people will say when reading this article is: “how do you pay for all of that?” In a previous article, Taxes, Budgets and Borrowing, I lay out exactly how the federal government and the national economy can be positioned so such expenditures are easily managed. Please read that article if you really want to know how to pay for all of this.

Currently, the United States Army consists of ten active divisions and one integrated division. Yes, that is it. Eleven (11) divisions. If you include the National Guard, that is eight more divisions. This gives us nineteen (19) divisions. To be fair, there are other brigade sized units out there as well as special operations units, but even with all of that, the Army is nowhere near big enough to counter many of the threats we are likely to face in the future.

The reasons for this are manifold. Since the end of the cold war, politicians from both parties have taken advantage of mostly false perceptions of security in order to redirect funding from defense to social and other government programs. Many of these programs are not within the purview of the federal government. As a result, our armed forces are constantly in the position of having to do more and more with less and less. Now, due to political malfeasance so severe it can only be described as treachery, the United States Army is far to small, and likely to get smaller.

Reversing this will take an enormous amount of political will. The people, and some few in government, have the will to do it. I believe the next election will move the nation very much in the right direction. Change will not happen all at once, but it need not take forever. Meanwhile, I believe it is necessary to have an idea of how we must structure our armed forces going forward.

There are two basic structural elements of the United States Army. The institutional Army and the operational Army. The institutional side of the Army includes training, support and logistical commands. I will not focus much on this part of the Army. Form follows function. The primary function of the Army is to fight and win wars. I will focus on the size and structure of the operational components of the Army. Training, support and logistics will have to be reconfigured to what ever is necessary to effectively support the operational structure as it evolves.

The current operational structure of the Army consists of six primary combatant commands, and three additional commands. These commands are: Central, North, South, Europe, Pacific, Africa, Special Operations, Surface Deployment and Distribution and, Space and Missile Defense. Currently, the existing war fighting assets of the Army are assigned as needed to whichever of the six primary combat commands require them. This is necessary given the limited amount of combat power available. It is also totally and completely inadequate. This structure needs to be realigned and fleshed out.

Instead of six regional commands, I would have six Army Group commands. Each Army Group would be structured identically. I would further have the structure duplicated in the active reserve component, and again as an inactive reserve.

Before I get into the specific structure of these Army Groups, let me first talk about the type of units required to build out the structure. There will be eight different unit structures involved. Three division structures, three regimental structures and two brigade structures.

The division structures are armor, light infantry and heavy (mechanized) infantry. The three regimental structures are cavalry regiments of three types: Heavy armored, light armored (strykers) and air cavalry. The two brigade structures include a fires brigade, artillery and other direct and indirect fire support assets, and a support brigade with technical, logistical, medical, transport and other support assets. All of these units are structured to provide a wide array of scalable capabilities to combatant commanders that are immediately available.

The standard division structure would be comprised of three brigades with three battalions each, containing three line companies, a combat support company and a headquarters company. Cavalry regiments would be comprised of three squadrons, each containing three line troops and appropriate support and HQ units as necessary. The support and fires capabilities are integrated at the corps level to give combat commanders more flexibility and scalability as needed in any given combat environment. The current concept of the Brigade Combat Team, where everything is integrated at the brigade level, would, and I believe should, be done away with as it is not nearly flexible or scalable enough. If that particular structure is what is needed in a given situation, it can be deployed as such.

The proposed Army Group structure includes six full Army Groups, each containing five field armies composed of three corps each. The field Army structure is key:

  • Field Army
    • First Corps
      • Armor Division
      • Light Infantry Division
      • Light Armored Cavalry Regiment
      • Support Brigade
      • Fires Brigade
    • Second Corps
      • Heavy Infantry Division
      • Heavy Infantry Division
      • Armored Cavalry Regiment
      • Support Brigade
      • Fires Brigade
    • Third Corps
      • Heavy Infantry Division
      • Heavy Infantry Division
      • Air Cavalry Regiment
      • Support Brigade
      • Fires Brigade

This structure would be duplicated five times in each Army group, and there would be six active duty Army groups. This structure alone includes over three million troops. I would further duplicate this structure in the Army Reserve, and then again as an inactive reserve with a skeleton command structure in place, not unlike the training divisions we had in the not so distant past. This completed structure would give us the ability to scale the force up to over ten million troops if necessary.

I am sure there are a number of you out there reading this who have noticed the conspicuous absence of any airborne or cavalry divisions. There is a very good reason for this. I propose creating a structure similar to a field Army which I will call an “Assault Army.” Like the field Army structure, this would be an Army comprised of three corps. Unlike the field Army, however, it would integrate fires and support at the division level. This assault Army would be structured like this:

  • Assault Army
    • First Corps
      • Airborne Division
      • Cavalry Division
    • Second Corps
      • Airborne Division
      • Cavalry Division
    • Third Corps
      • Airborne Division
      • Cavalry Division

As you can see, this will require some fancy footwork in order to get the required units stood up and in place, but not as much as you might think. First, how do we get to three airborne divisions? Currently, we only have one, but there are other airborne assets available, not including the 173rd Airborne Brigade, from which to start building those divisions.

The first order of business is to change the airborne doctrine of the United States Army. I know that sounds scary, but I think anyone who knows anything about it will realize that what I propose is way better than what we are doing now. My proposal is simply this: Combine the current airborne and air assault doctrines into a single, cohesive airborne doctrine.

The next question is, how do we create three airborne divisions? Until recently that would not have been as big a problem as it initially seems, but since both the 82nd and the 101st lost their 4th brigades, it becomes a bit more problematic. In any case, it is still not going to be that difficult. First, we need to stand up a third airborne division. Historically, we have several to choose from. The 11th, 13th and 17th divisions of WWII were airborne. Personally, I would go with the 11th for historical reasons, but that is just me. So now we have three divisions, the 82nd, 101st and 11th.

In standing up the new division, 4th Brigade, 25th Inf (Airborne) would become 1st Brigade, 11th Airborne, and two more brigades would be stood up behind it. Existing personnel in the three divisions would be given additional training as needed to bring them into compliance with the new doctrine. This takes care of half of each of the three corps in the proposed assault Army.

The other half of these corps are the cavalry divisions. We already have one, the 1st Cavalry Division, in operation. Historically, there is only one other cavalry division, the 2nd, so it will need to be reactivated, and a third division stood up. These divisions would be configured to bring an array of combat capabilities to the fight, mostly in the area of highly mobile heavy and medium maneuver units.

The idea behind this structure is the ability to rapidly deploy these units into the battle space. These are assault units. In modern military parlance, they are designed to perform “forced entry” missions. The concept is to have an airborne division that can be delivered anywhere in the world by parachute in very short order, and a cavalry unit as an immediate follow on force. Once in theater, the airborne units can further deploy via parachute and/or helicopters.

I envision something like this: A target is selected, preferably an airfield. The airborne division, that is the entire division, is dropped in to assault the airfield. Once the airfield is secured, which will not take long with an entire division assaulting it, assets of the cavalry division start landing, along with the air assets, (helicopters, etc.) of the airborne division. I believe it is possible to have the entire assault corps, that is both divisions and all of their equipment and vehicles, on the ground at the target in less than 48 hours. In fact, it is conceivable it could be accomplished in half that time.

This capability will obviously require an extensive array of air lift capabilities which I will address in a later article focusing on the United States Air Force. Once this assault corps is on the ground with all of their equipment and vehicles, the airborne division, which dropped in like the 82nd, now can operate like the 101st currently operates. This assault corps constitutes a wide array of capabilities that can be leveraged for any number of tactical or strategic missions.

Another part of this doctrine would have to be in training. These units would have to be trained and equipped in such a way as to maximize their ability to deploy rapidly to their targets. For the airborne this is business as usual, but for a heavy cavalry unit it will take some time and effort to work out the most efficient way to deploy the unit and its assets this quickly. I have no doubt it can be done, but specialized training and equipment will be critical to success.

There is a third aspect of the Army structure to be addressed: Special Operations. The current command structure is probably the best way to go, with the Army in the lead, and the other services’ SpecOps units under that over all command. For this article, I will focus on those SpecOps units and capabilities native to the Army.

Currently, Army Special Operations consists of Army Special Forces (Green Berets), Delta Force, 75th Infantry Regiment (Ranger), 160th Special Operations Air Regiment (SOAR) and various other units dedicated to intelligence, civil affairs, psychological warfare (PsyOps), support and logistics, etc. The only real problem we have with Special Operations is the size of the force. Even in a relatively small war scenario, like Iraq, the operational tempo of our special operations forces was very high. Our best troops were burned out too quickly because there were not enough of them to go around. This must count as a lesson learned, and steps must be taken to insure this does not happen again, even in a much larger scale conflict.

I would propose increasing the size and scope of Army Special Operations. First, I would increase the number of Special Forces Groups, the Green Berets, from five to at least seven, and preferably eight. I would also stand up a second Ranger regiment, as well as a second Special Operations Air Regiment (SOAR). I would then permanently assign two units that are currently not under Special Operations Command, to that command: The 173rd Airborne Brigade, and the 10th Mountain Division. These units have experience working with special operations units already. Training for these unites would expand to include special operations specific activities.

Our special operations forces will always play a key roll in any combat we might face. Giving that command the flexibility and scalability needed to decisively engage in what ever action is required of them is critical to any combat scenario in which victory is the end goal. If victory is not the end goal, then we should not engage any forces in such an operation.

In addition to these structural changes to the existing Army, I would create an entirely new type of unit within the Army. The appropriate number of these units is something I have not determined, but at this point that is not an important consideration. What is important is the mission: Occupation.

I propose a new type of unit be established based on the current light infantry model. A division, with three brigades or regiments of three battalions each. This would essentially be a light infantry division with all those capabilities, but it is not a front line fighting unit. It is, instead, a dedicated occupation force. These soldiers would be regular infantry soldiers, but would receive additional training relative to occupation duties. They would also be equipped differently than their front line infantry counterparts. Instead of armored personnel carriers or main battle tanks, these units would be equipped with armored wheeled vehicles like the current MWRAP vehicles used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Everything about the outward appearance of these units would be different. Their uniforms would be different. They would use different vehicles and helicopters. These units would be designed to maintain order in an occupied area, and would have within them dedicated administrative, civil affairs, civil engineering and intelligence units in addition to the occupation troops themselves.

The purpose of all of this is to present a different “face” to the native people in the occupied area. The key is to have a range of capabilities allowing that “face” to be one that is friendly and helpful, or, if necessary, harsh and intimidating, or something in between. This would, of course, be dependent on the disposition of those people living in the occupied area. The idea is to be able to go from a fairly innocuous looking presence oriented toward maintaining order, to a full on combat ready presence oriented toward restoring order, and leaving no doubt in anyone’s mind that they are fully capable of doing precisely that.

I believe this type of unit should be maintained in a separate command structure and deployed as needed. In some cases the entire unit may be needed. In other cases perhaps just a brigade or battalion is needed. It is also possible to embed these units in the existing field Army structure, although I prefer them in a separate and independent command structure as I believe that offers more flexibility. I also believe that only a small portion of the unit need be on actual active duty. It would probably be of benefit to have one division on active duty, and the rest of the Army structure on active reserve.

Keep in mind that the mission of these occupation units is not nation building. These units are designed to operate in rear areas after front line fighting units have secured them. Their mission is to maintain, and if necessary, restore order. There would also be an inherent intelligence gathering mission.

Another long standing problem with the Army is that of procurement. While the Army, and the armed forces over all, have solved a lot of their procurement problems, there are still some things that should be addressed. Most of this can be dealt with as part of an overhaul not only how things are procured, but what is procured and why.

For this new Army structure, actually, even without it, we need to update much of the equipment used. In particular, are the heavy weapons and vehicles used by our troops. The capabilities of these systems must be different than what we are used to considering for such systems.

Given the state of current technology, an extended period of development of new vehicles and heavy weapons for the Army is not necessary. I would recommend developing a basic vehicle that is readily adaptable to configurations needed by the Army. This would be similar to the canceled Future Combat Systems program previously pursued by the Army. In fact, it could be that very system. A single program encompassing all, or at least most, of the Army’s needs into the future is preferable due to the lower inherent cost and logistical requirements of such a system.

We already have the technology, and already know how to apply that technology to the problem. The system could be built and deployed in fairly short order if we stick with existing proven technology, at least at first. The key is to design these systems in such a way that they can be updated and upgraded with new technologies very rapidly. By using a modular design, at least where the electronics and computer technology is concerned, it is possible to field a system that can be readily updated and upgraded quickly right in the field.

It is also very important to consider the vulnerabilities of that technology. One EMP and everything goes to hell. These system should be designed with a basic functionality that enables the users, our troops, to shoot, move and communicate in the event the major technological systems are rendered inoperative. This means, for instance, that a tank crew still have the ability to drive the tank, and load, aim and fire the main gun, even if the computers and electronic fire control systems are offline.

While I do believe it is prudent to field new, more capable ground combat systems, I am not so sure we need to do that where the Army’s air assets are concerned. The primary air assets of the Army, the Blackhawk, Apache and Chinook helicopters, are more than adequate to the mission, whatever that mission is. In fact, and especially in the case of the CH-47 Chinook, even though it has been a mainstay in the Army for half a century, I do not believe anyone, anywhere, has come up with a better design to do what it does. The only real problem with any of these helicopters is that we do not have nearly enough of them, especially given the demands of the new structure explained above. Fortunately, all three of these helicopters are still in production, so procuring enough to fulfill the requirements created by the expansion of the Army, the deployment of all those AirCav Regiments, and the integration of the new airborne doctrine, will not be a problem.

In addition to the regular Army, and the Army reserve, I believe we need to take a hard look at the Army National Guard. Specifically, we need to redefine the mission of the Guard, and restructure the units back to what they were before. This modular combat brigade structure is really not as useful, especially to the Guard, as people seem to think. This is especially true given how I believe the Guard should be deployed.

I believe the Army National Guard should be permanently assigned the mission of doing what its name implies: Guarding the Nation. Given the Army Group structure described above, and the fact that this structure would be duplicated in the Army Reserve, there would no longer be a need for the Army National Guard to be deployed as a reserve force for the Army in overseas operations. Instead, the Guard would train and deploy for operations only within the borders of the United States. To this end, some structural changes, especially to the front line units, would be required.

As stated above, the combat divisions of the Guard should be realigned into standard three brigade divisions. Currently, there are only eight combat divisions within the Guard. This should be expanded to at least twelve divisions. The Guard should have sufficient assets available to it, including air and special operations, to deal with any of its natural missions. As we know, the Guard is not only a combat oriented organization. It also responds to natural disasters, civil disturbances, and a host of other missions for which it is uniquely suited. Those missions must all be maintained and trained for, but the primary mission of the Guard has to be to engage in combat operations against any enemy of the United States on our own soil.

Until recently, this was something most people would not consider a pressing need, but that has changed. Our enemies are not all foreign nations with standing armies to deal with. In the age of terrorism, and especially with the advent of the “invasion by immigration” doctrine of so many enemy cultures, it is only prudent to maintain a force structure and level of readiness in the National Guard capable of dealing with any of these eventualities.

In addition to the structural changes, there is a real pressing need for a change in the way leaders at the very top of the command structure approach combat operations. Firstly, in any combat situation, it is wholly unacceptable for the rules of engagement to be formulated by a lawyer. In fact, in most combat situations, the only rule of engagement needed is simply “kill the enemy.” These lawyerly rules first showed up during the Vietnam war, and were a large part of the reason that war was lost. It is the reason politicians now talk in terms of “ending” a war instead of winning a war. This is not only unacceptable, it is inexcusable. Lastly, the United States must take a different approach to foreign relations. The current United Nations centered approach not only does not work, it has actually created an environment where the sovereignty and security of the United States is directly at risk.

Whether you agree with my concept of a restructured Army or not, you have to agree that the current model is at least inadequate. There can be no doubt that many of our enemies, and potential enemies, are watching very closely to see what happens next. If the wrong person is elected President this November, they will know our military capabilities are likely to become even more atrophied. Our enemies will not only become bolder, they will also increase in number. It must also be pointed out that in identifying who our enemies are, the enemy gets a vote. That is to say, even if we do not consider a particular nation an enemy, they may consider us an enemy. In that case, they are an enemy, and should be dealt with on that basis.

The first duty of the federal government is to defend the nation. That means our lands, our people and most especially our constitution. Anything less constitutes at the very least a dereliction of duty, and could, in some cases, be construed as down right treason. These are considerations it seems our current leaders are not aware of. I pray they do not learn them the hard way, at least not before they can be replaced. Enemies such as Russia and Iran are already on the move in the middle east and Eastern Europe. The situation there could easily escalate into something even more serious and widespread. The United States Army is not adequately manned and equipped to deal with the potential problems we face right now in a decisive manner. This must be a top priority for the next administration. The current administration certainly has no interest in solving this problem. We can only hope these problems with our Army are solved before it is too late.

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.

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.

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.