Are the Founding Fathers too extreme? Is being an advocate for liberty or wanting to make the world a better place incompatible with military service? Somebody seems to think so.  After filing a Freedom of Information Act request, an organization called Judicial Watch was able to obtain documents from the Department of Defense, which labeled the Founding Fathers as extremists and states, “participation in extremism is inconsistent with the duties of military service.” To be specific, it was the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) which claimed in a January 2013 lecture on “Extremism”:
"In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples."

The document further claims:
“Individuals who hold extremist views are in conflict with the standards expected of all military members, and participation in extremism is inconsistent with the duties of military service...”
 “All nations have an ideology, something in which they believe. When a political ideology falls outside the norms of society, it is known as extremism. When extremists take their ideology to the next level and believe that it is the only right ideology to follow, it becomes supremism.”


My immediate questions involve trying to figure out who decides what the “norms of society” are and what do they mean by “taking it to the next level?”  Does that mean holding a rally or protest? A letter writing campaign?  Starting a petition?

But here is the really alarming statement in the document:
“Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.”
In the twelve years after the terrorist attacks on 9-11 by Islamic militants, our nation has been engulfed in a Global War on Terror and we continue to seek out, identify and eliminate threats from extremists the world over. At this point however, it seems that extremism has been used so broadly that it can mean anything from a suicide bomber to the signers of our Declaration of Independence only because they signed a document highlighting the sanctity of individual liberty. 

“Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.”

-Department of Defense Document, January 2013

We need to understand the parameters this document has set.  The document states that you become an extremist simply because your political ideology doesn’t fit the norms of society. Who, we should ask, is in charge of looking at the 300 million plus people in our country and gets to decide what the scope of normal is?  How does the government establish whose ideas are normal and whose aren’t? From my understanding of history and the constitution, I have been under the impression that the 1st amendment was established to protect my right to express my ideology and thoughts and religion even if they were unpopular, or outside the “norms of society” if you will.  Furthermore, the Department of Defense basically implies that those who advocate for states’ rights, a constitutionally identifiable mechanism of checks and balances, are also extremist.     

Here is a real mind bender: the document states that, “Nowadays… many extremists will talk of individual liberties… and how to make the world a better place.” Huh? Lets follow the logic here.  If the Department of Defense is setting policy for our military that identifies extremism as an ideology that falls outside the norms of society and they identify extremist behavior as those who advocate liberty and want to make the world a better place then it means that someone has already established that it is “normal” in our society for the majority of people to demonize liberty and to be so immoral as to not want to make the world a better place. What is going on at the Department of Defense that someone could actually get away with writing this? I believe just the opposite; the vast majority of Americans want to enjoy liberty and in fact want to make the world a better place.

Many people have always been under the impression, and rightfully so, that the point of American government was to protect liberty in an effort to make the world a better place. That might still be the case but apparently, someone has decided that the prevailing thought is something else. If you are in the group of people who still hold to the traditional, constitutional and liberty-minded school of thought, this document has branded you an extremist. According to this document, traditional American government and constitutionalism is now so far outside the scope of normal society that the Department of Defense must label it “extremism” and incompatible with U.S. military service. The irony here is that in order to become a member of the U.S. Military, one must still swear an oath to the Constitution, at least for now. 



Listen and subscribe to my podcast on iTunes.
 
What exactly is a tax an income? Most people understand income taxes to simply be a tax on wages and although that is a true assessment, I would argue that income taxes represent a lot more than the government taking a few dollars out of our paychecks. 

Let me explain this. If I were going to pay you to mow my lawn, we would first have to agree on a price for your labor. You might look at my lawn and consider things like risk after all, there are going to be blades spinning near your feet. You might consider the time involved and maybe even how miserable it be to mow a lawn in the middle of summer when the temperature is 105 degrees. Lets say you agree to mow my lawn and considering the risk involved, the hot sun and assuming the job will take you an hour, you ask for $20. 

After my lawn is mowed I give you $20 that you carry away and deposit into your bank. That $20 isn’t just a paycheck. It represent much more than a number in fact it’s direct manifestation of your labor.  That $20 represents the value of an hour of your time and productivity.  


When the government taxes your $20 then, it is really taxing your labor and productivity. Fundamentally speaking, an income tax is when the government is charging you for your productivity and time. If the government charges your time and productivity is too high in Missouri for example, it only makes sense that you might consider finding another state to be productive in; another state that doesn’t charge you as much for your own work.  States that cooperate with your productivity are likely to have more prosperous economies than states that compete with your productivity. 

"That $20 isn’t just a paycheck. It represent much more than a number, in fact it’s direct manifestation of your labor.  That $20 represents the value of an hour of your time and productivity.  "

When legislature begin to discuss tax reform and policy geared toward economic development, it is important they understand these simple principles and they really are simple:

Money works a lot like food, when the government devours more and more of the peoples money, the bigger the government grows and the less productive the people become for themselves; the more money people feed into their local economies as they buy and sell things to meet their needs however, the stronger our local economies grow.  Lower taxes stimulate economic growth.


Subscribe to Paul's podcast on iTunes or listen at www.paulcurtman.com