Mr. Luedtke critiques the judge for deciding a prisoner’s sex change operation was a medical necessity. Now, in order for this to be a medical necessity one would have to assume there was something that was wrong with the prisoner to prompt this question even being raised. The inmate was most likely diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder, which is recognized by both the ICD-10 and DSM-IV as a legitimate medical and/or psychological condition. While it appears that Mr. Luedtke is a no taxes ever kind of guy who likes his roads delapitated and negotiating with firefighters before they put out a house fire. So, I feel safe in saying he also wouldn’t want an inmate to have an apendectomy if such surgery was required for an inmate based on a recognizable medical condition. Why do I feel safe in saying this? Because, like all good Conservatives Mr. Luedtke doesn’t make exceptions for his beliefs, there is zero chance the opinion of the procedure has anything to do with his antiquated views on gender or sexual orientation. It is a cut and dry issue based on taxation and nothing else. Then again … I’ve been wrong before.

Tax Resistance was not a motivating factor for The Revolutionary War. The Tea Act gave a tax break to The Dutch India company, who was not only Britian’s largest company at the time but also facing impending bankruptcy due to not being able to sell tea fast enough. As the tea without tax entered the American colonies, now at a greatly reduced tax rate, it made tea smuggles like John Hancock far less able to achieve wealth through smuggling tea in the the colonies. The other tea companies and their owners also did not receive a tax break, like the Dutch India Co. did. So, at the end of the day, while your high school history book says differently, The Revolutionary War was actually has its roots in fighting colusion between corporations and government … not tax resistance.

To keep my corrections of your propagandist statements going here Mr. Luedtke. How is it that President Obama has stolen more than any President in history? The established basis for theft at this point in your writing is taxation, Obama kept the same tax plan that Bush had. Now, certainly the overall dollar amount would be more as people enter the job force, pay taxes, and thus increase the overall dollar amount of taxes collected. However, the tax percentages would have remained the same as they were under The Bush Administration. So, not only is Mr. Luedtke’s statement patently false it is also tatamount to the statement of someone looking to gain allegiance through fear and not through presenting facts and allowing one to decide if or to what degree they wish to lend their allegiance.

While I don’t have statistics in front of me at the moment to dispute Mr. Luedtke’s claims concerning productivity in the Nineteenth Century, it seems like a plausible notion so lets run with it. It’s easy to be productive when you are forced to work 16 hour days or face losing your job, children are often working in factories, there are no safety or sanitation standards for the work place.

And as for being brainwashed, Mr. Luedtke comes off like someone who is drinking the Tea Party Kool-Aid. He is trying to frighten people into agreeing with him by painting a picture of a trembling Republic in its deathrows. I know not what the future holds, but if fear mongering by ecentrics is what leads us there, chances are good it won’t be a future worth having.

Actually, much as I agree with some of what Mr. Luedtke has to say in this piece, I’m still left wondering just exactly what he believes is the true function of government, and if that involves the expenditure of any monies whatsoever, how he would propose those monies be raised. “Shrink government” libertarians like Mr. Luedtke always seem to have at least a few pet cows they want to feed, and no real way of explaining how that will come to pass without taxes.

Cheers,
Geoff