In Response to "Sales Tax or Income Tax"

By Bill Pickle

The author of this commentary puts forth their ideas in a logical and easily understood fashion. The writer is clear on where he stand on the issue, but the arguments could have been better thought out and backed up with more than personal anecdotes. The blog is easy to read overall.


In a just society all citizens should pay equally for the services the government should provide. A progressive income tax does not provide this. I should not have to pay more taxes just because I am talented enough to be more productive and earn more than someone who works at Taco Bell. The fact that someone is too pathetic and or to lazy to find a job should not excuse them from paying for the services that useful citizens pay for. Income and property taxes are taxes on productivity. Socialist wealth redistribution schemes makes everyone equally poor and miserable. Productive and talented people should not be punished for being talented and productive. The only fair tax is a tax that all citizens are bound to pay equally. The sales tax is the closest we have to that.

Texas Justice

Commentary by

Bill Pickle

Joe Horn, 61 was enjoying some peace and quit one morning when he heard the sound of breaking glass. He looked out his window and saw two outlaws breaking into his neighbors house. Joe tried to call for help but help wasn’t coming fast. He grabbed his shotgun. Joe went outside and tried to stop the bandits. According to Joe the criminals came after him and he had no choice but to gun them down. Most people would call Joe a hero who did what was just and necessary. Unfortunately for Joe this didn’t happen in the 1800s. It happened in 2007 and things are a lot more complicated in today’s world.

Here is a portion of the 911 call Mr. Horn made.

Dispatcher: "I want you to listen to me carefully, OK?"

Horn: "Yes?"

Dispatcher: "I got officers coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house. And I don't want you to have that gun in your hand when those officers are poking around out there."

Horn: "I understand that, OK, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the First and you know it and I know it."

Dispatcher: "I understand."

Horn: "I have a right to protect myself ..."

Dispatcher: "I'm ..."

Horn: "And a shotgun is a legal weapon, it's not an illegal weapon."

Dispatcher: "No, it's not, I'm not saying that, I'm just not wanting you to ..."

Horn: "OK, he's coming out the window right now, I gotta go, buddy. I'm sorry, but he's coming out the window. "

Dispatcher: "No, don't, don't go out the door, Mister Horn. Mister Horn..."

Horn: "They just stole something, I'm going out to look for 'em, I'm sorry, I ain't letting them get away with this ----. They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!"

Dispatcher: "Mister, do not go outside the house."

Horn: "I'm sorry, this ain't right, buddy."

Dispatcher: "You gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don't care what you think."

Horn: "You wanna make a bet?"

Dispatcher: "Stay in the house."

Horn: "There, one of them's getting away!

Dispatcher: "That's alright, property's not something worth killing someone over. OK? Don't go out the house, don't be shooting nobody. I know you're pissed and you're frustrated but don't do it."

Horn: "They got a bag of loot."

Dispatcher: "OK. How big is the bag?" He then talks off, relaying the information.

Dispatcher: "Which way are they going?"

Horn: "I can't ... I'm going outside. I'll find out."

Dispatcher: "I don't want you going outside, Mister..."

Horn: "Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."

Dispatcher: "Don't go outside."

At that point you can here the sound of the shotgun being cocked. You're dead!" he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then you can here the shotgun fire two more times.

Then Joe gets back on the phone:

"Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."

Dispatcher: "Mister Horn, are you out there right now?"

Horn: "No, I am inside the house, I went back in the house. Man, they come right in my yard, I didn't know what the --- they was gonna do, I shot 'em, OK?"

Dispatcher: "Did you shoot somebody?

Horn: "Yes, I did, the cops are here right now."

Dispatcher: "Where are you right now?"

Horn: "I'm inside the house. ..."

Dispatcher: "Mister Horn, put that gun down before you shoot an officer of mine. I've got several officers out there without uniforms on."

Horn: "I am in the front yard right now. I am ..."

Dispatcher: "Put that gun down! There's officers out there without uniforms on. Do not shoot anybody else, do you understand me? I've got police out there..."

Horn: "I understand, I understand. I am out in the front yard waving my hand right now."

Dispatcher: "You don't have a gun with you, do you?

Horn: "No, no, no."

Dispatcher: "You see a uniformed officer? Now lay down on the ground and don't do nothing else." Yelling is heard. Dispatcher: "Lay down on the ground, Mister Horn. Do what the officers tell you to do right now."

I applaud Joe Horn for seeking justice. These criminals would have probably gotten away. As a former law enforcement officer I can tell you that we often don’t show up until it is too late. Mr. Horn took his gun outside and confronted the thieves when he did not have to. I think this was a heroic act on his part but many of the sheeple in our society will not agree. Even the 911 dispatcher stated that property was not worth killing for. There is a large segment of our society that believes it is the states responsibility to protect us and that individuals have no right to defend ourselves, our homes, or others. I don’t want to live in a place where me and my neighbors aren’t allowed to look after each other.

The Texas Penal Code states, "A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief. Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child." From this perspective it is clear that Joe Horn had the right to use force to protect his neighbors property, but that is not all that exonerates Mr. Horn from wrongdoing.

Joe Horn stated that the thugs started coming toward him when he confronted them. He also said that one of them had a crowbar. The Texas Penal Code states, “A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery." Mr. Horn did nothing wrong if he believed that his life was in danger.

I am glad I live in Texas. People still watch out for each other. There are people in Texas that are willing to stand up to the villainous scum that seem to walk our streets without fear. I wish that more people would make a stand like citizen Joe Horn.

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/shared-gen/ap/National/Burglary_Shooting.html


/www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/27/shooting_of_burglars_in_texas_draws_debate/http:/


http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/gunlaws.html

In Response to "Death Penalty: Justice or Murder?"

The author of this piece puts forth the standard arguments against the death penalty. She gives her opinions but does not offer much in the way of argument. It would have been a better article if she had broken her opinions into paragraphs and argued her points. I am not saying the article was bad only that it was difficult to read and seemed like a first draft instead of a finished product. The way she worded her opinions were good and the reader can tell that she genuinely believes them. She seems intelligent. I just think she could have done better.

Some of the basic arguments against capital punishment are: it costs too much to keep someone on death row for years; it doesn't deter; and we could just as well give a killer a life sentence. To this I reply: it costs too much only because we have not placed rational time limits on the appeals process; the issue isn't deterring future killers, but justice for the murder victim; life in prison means the murderer is likely to live the same way in prison as he lived in the free world.

I believe in the classical school of criminal justice. The punishment should fit the crime. I do not mean literally an eye for an eye. I do not believe in sinking to the level of a criminal and punishing law breakers in kind. Revenge is not justice. What I am talking about is retribution. A just society must punish criminals in proportion to the damage they have done. What possible penalty could be proportionate to the crime of murder but the forfeiture of the murderer's own life? In the case of premeditated murder, in which there is no question of guilt and no extenuating circumstances, capital punishment should be the standard penalty.

BASTARD UNION OF THE NRA AND ACLU WIN VICTORY FOR TEXAS GUN OWNERS

Commentary by Bill Pickle

On September 1, 2007 House Bill 1815 went into effect without much fanfare. The bill is an amendment to Texas’ “traveling rule” in regards to concealed handguns. House Bill 1815, which was supported by both the National Rifle Association and the Texas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union clears up the 2005 law that allows Texas residents to carry a concealed weapon in their privately owned vehicles without a concealed carry permit. This is a big step toward liberty for Texas gun owners.

Texas has a long tradition of being able to posses a gun while traveling but what traveling meant has not always been clearly defined. In most cases the burden of proof was on the driver of the vehicle. The State legislature tried to clear things up in 1997 by removing unlicensed carrying of a weapon as an offense while traveling but what exactly was considered traveling was still vague. Most people believe the urban legend that you had to be traveling across two or more counties to be considered traveling. This was never the case.

Lawmakers sought to remove the haziness in 2005 by stating that anyone in a private vehicle who was not engaged in criminal activity or otherwise barred from possessing a firearm was “presumed to be traveling,” and thus exempt from restrictions on concealed handguns. However, District Attorneys and police officers continued to make arrests because the burden was still on the driver to prove that he was traveling. There was no presumption of innocence for Texas gun owners.

Hopefully House Bill 1815 will be the final word. The new bill states that a person cannot be charged with unlawfully carrying a weapon (UCW) in their personal vehicle unless the hand gun is in plain view, the person is engaged in criminal activity other than traffic violations, the person is legally not allowed to own a weapon, or the person's name is in the state of Texas' criminal street gang database.

District attorneys can no longer pickup criminals for small offenses and then add a gun charge to force a quick plea bargain. Average citizens who want to protect themselves and their families will no longer be treated like hardened criminals. It is worth letting a few criminals go to protect the rights of honest citizens.


http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB01815I.htm


http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119544.html

State Legislater Indicted in Dallas Public Curruption Case

Here is a story I found that details a federal investigation of bribery, extortion, and kickbacks involving state Rep. Terri Hodge and numerous past and present Dallas city officials. Federal prosecutors claim that Hodge, D-Dallas, used her office to clear red tape for a Dallas area development company. She has been charged with one count of conspiracy to commit bribery, five counts of fraud and false statements in connection with federal income tax returns, and eight counts of bribery. She turned down a plea deal and keep her seat until the case is decided.

Along with state Rep. Terri Hodge, the 31-count main indictment named real estate developer Brian L. Potashnik, his wife, Cheryl L. Potashnik, and former City Council Member and one-time mayoral candidate Donald W. Hill and his wife, Sheila D. Farrington.

It is a decent article but fails to capture the intrigue and drama that often surrounds these types of cases. The article is informative but boring. It was like reading the Cliff Notes for The Old Man and The Sea. The article lists the plot, the characters, and the analysis but ultimately has no soul. The case involves 14 people but we don’t get a comprehensive story. What kind of evidence do we have against these people? The article reads more like an outline. It is like the 30 second blurbs you see on CNN.

I also think the article spends too much time on information that I believe is designed to make readers sympathize with Terri Hodge. Why does the reader need to know that Rep. Hodge is a retired single mother? The fact that she has been an outspoken defender of prisoner’s rights is ironic but it does nothing to address the issue. A more conspiratorial person might suggest that the writer is playing the race card. I find it interesting that the article ends with this quote from activist Joan Covici, "If these details are correct, this must be what it takes to get first-class, low-cost housing in Dallas — a city that has never been friendly to minorities — especially blacks and Hispanics. It is almost like the article is suggesting that Rep. Hodge is being brought up on charges because she is black.

You can read the article by following the link below.


http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/10/02/1002dallas.html

I found an interesting article on the Dallas Morning News website titled North Texas law makers have eye on speaker’s job. The article explains that Dallas legislators believe that they could improve their success at the Capital by electing a House speaker from North Texas in 2009. The idea is that a speaker from North Texas would mean more seats on committees that control major legislation and more state money sent to the Dallas area.


The article goes on to explain that there are three major candidates who may be able to depose current speaker Tom Craddick. They are Jim Pitts of Waxahachie, Brian McCall of Plano, and Jim Keffer of Eastland. They are all Republicans. The article makes clear that it will be difficult to unseat Tom Craddick unless his opposition can rally behind a single candidate.


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/092107dntexdelegation.344214e.html