Our rights do not originate with government, but they are to be "secured" by government.
Formerly: Libertarian Party of Citrus county

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Libertarianism, Religion, and the DH

By Tom Rhodes, 8/20/2014

Libertarians are a tolerant lot, except when it comes to religion. For some reason many, not all, and not even a majority, but many, are under the delusion that expressing and practicing and having your political actions influenced by any religion other than atheism is somehow not libertarian. Many libertarians actually support “Freedom From Religion.”

We really need to give everybody some Big-Boy pants, and teach the whiners to learn to focus their efforts on something productive. The anti-religion crowd needs to go back and read the constitution, and re-read, over and over again, the First Amendment. The First amendment guarantees freedom of religion, and prohibits the government from establishing a religion. It does not protect atheists from exposure to other religion. In fact any elected official, or government official, or employee, so long as they are not forcing others to believe as they do have a right to exercise their freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and express religious viewpoints even at government events.

At some point those whose religion is atheism, atheists, must come to an understanding that they must abide by the same rules they attempt to use to control others. Atheism is a religion. A Religion is defined as a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. Atheism like Christianity, Islam, or the belief in the Greek Gods of Old, or the Norse God Oden, has a position on the existence of the divine or the afterlife. It’s not like baseball and having the righteous belief that the designated hitter is an abomination before all that is true, good, and honorable in baseball (a belief all morally righteous, intelligent, and fair thinking people share). Because atheism has a set of generally agreed upon beliefs by a number of persons concerning the existence of a divine or the afterlife it must rationally be considered a religion or sect of some kind.

The right to say there is no god or supernatural has no precedence nor priority over the right to say there is only one God, or many gods. Even among elected or government employed people. Unless they force you to believe as they do, or make your belief a basis of how you are treated under the law, rules, regulations, etc. Everybody is free to express their religion, even atheists, as they see fit. It is only when religion is used to determine how a law, rule, regulation, or something the government does, is there a problem.

Our country is being torn apart and destroyed by the continuous broadening of the idea and scope of “infringement” on the rights of others. Catering to atheists is destroying the country. We need to return to the American philosophy of "live and let live." Endowing hypersensitive crybabies with the power to censor those who don’t share their religion is upsetting the equilibrium that liberty and justice for all created, and has proven to work extremely well for an long time.

The Libertarian Party of Florida is not a religion, it has no specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon concerning the existence of a divine or the afterlife. The basic beliefs of the LPF are irrelevant to the existence or not of a divine being. Like all political parties the LP is an organization that exists to gain political power. The LP welcome people of any and all beliefs so long as you do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force or use of fraud to achieve social or political goals.

Now if you believe that there should be different rules, laws, regulations, or courts for people of different religions you clearly don’t share the beliefs and goals of the LP and should consider another political party. If you’re an atheist who wants to eliminate religious expression in public, eliminate evangelism, censor or silence those who don’t share your beliefs, and are willing to institute laws and use the force of government to be “free from religion” you probably shouldn’t be in the LP. You do not have a right to be free from exposure to other people’s religions. If you believe government schools should be able to censor graduation speeches so that valedictorians don’t “offend” people with their “Ode to Oden” or praise for Christ, for getting them through high school, you probably don’t belong in the LP, that is clearly the exercise of rights the government is restrained from infringing upon.

The LPF exists to gain political power in order to establish a society based on personal liberty and responsibility—a society in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives. The LPF believes the most desirable method of organizing society is the natural order that arises when the unalienable rights of individuals to life, liberty and property ownership are respected and protected. If your religion doesn’t share that belief you probably shouldn’t be in the LPF. The LPF believes that people have the right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and pursue happiness in whatever manner they choose so long as they do not forcibly or fraudulently interfere with the equal rights of others. Libertarians welcome the peace, prosperity, and diversity that freedom brings.


Oh on a side note, if you believe the DH is a good rule, you are clearly a statist pig who has disavowed even pretense of holding libertarian beliefs, hate equality under the rules, and trust in evil egalitarianism. The idea that because a pitcher is notoriously bad at hitting the ball, they deserve to be exempt from the rules other players must abide; allowing some other person to play in their place is clearly unequal treatment that offers special treatment for some players and not others. The DH is like having somebody else take the math part of your ACT, because your good in english but bad in math.The DH is almost as evil as water cooling on a Harley. The DH is an abomination to baseball, libertarianism, freedom, truth, the American Way, and all that is good and right in the world. Society tolerating the DH is the canary in the bird cage, showing we are headed to totalitarianism. Although religion should not be a litmus test against being in the LPF, maybe we should add a platform plank to disqualify all people who believe in the DH not only from the LPF but from the voter rolls as well.

Of course my opinion on baseball might be a tad extreme, even for Libertarians, but unlike politics, baseball is important.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Libertarianism and Islam

By Tom Rhodes, 8/12/2014

There are not many but some in the Libertarian party who are ardent supporters of Islam. The LP is about liberty and freedom, and has very minimal standards. Basically agree with the non-aggression principle and can be a libertarian. There are millions of people who are Muslims but not radical Islamists. Most are nominally Muslim by birth or social construct, but are not practicing. Just like liberal pro-gay rights Christians, they aren’t really Christians as they must and do reject the clear teachings of the Bible. Most Muslims aren’t don’t really believe in Islamists and the Koran, as they reject many of its clear teachings. The clear teachings of the Islamic Holy writs, the Koran and Hadith, are incompatible with libertarianism.

As such I have some questions for any Muslim who claims to be a libertarian and claim to uphold the Five Pillars of Islam and believe in the divine inspiration of the Koran and the reliability of the Hadith, I’d love to hear your responses to these questions.

We often hear horror stories of little girls being married to older men, genital mutilation, and honor killings of women who allegedly brought disrepute on their families. Do you categorically and without qualification denounce the practices of child brides, clitorectomies, and honor killings?

It is undeniable that non-Muslims living in some Muslim countries have been reduced to severe second-class citizen status (dhimmitude, in full) and forced to pay the oppressive jizya tax. In some Muslim countries, they can be jailed or killed simply if someone accuses them of blaspheming Muhammad. Do you categorically and without qualification denounce these practices and endorce non-Muslims to live as complete equals in both our and other countries?

Do you unqualified and without reservation support freedom of speech, even speech that might be considered blasphemous to Mohamad?

Will you defend the right of others to speech that which you consider Blasphemous?

Do you categorically and without qualification denounce all calls to execute so called blasphemers of Mohamad, like Wilder and Rushdie?

This year the Muslim Association of Malawi (MAM) called for homosexual people in the
country to be given the death penalty. Do you categorically and without qualification denounce all calls to punish people for being homosexual?

In quite a few Muslim countries, conversion is forbidden under penalty of death. Do you categorically and without qualification denounce this practice and support the 1st Amendment that guarantees free and open religious interaction, denouncing all punishments of any kind for conversion?

The Islamic State has demanded that non-Muslims convert or die. ISIS is carrying out Christian executions and even crucifixions right now. Do you categorically and without qualification denounce the practice of forced conversions?

All radical Muslim groups want to enforce Sharia Law. Do you categorically and without qualification stand against the implementation of Sharia?

“The Hour [of Resurrection] will not come until you fight the Jews. The Jew will hide behind stones or trees. Then the stones or trees will call: ‘Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’” is a famous Hadith. Do you categorically and without qualification state that Israel and the Jews have a right to exist?

I would love to get some direct answers from Muslims in the LP. The little dealing I’ve had with them is clear, they want different rules for Muslims than non-Muslims, they hem-haw and obfuscate supporting equal rights for everybody equally. We must consider a problem with answers by a person who claims to uphold the Five Pillars of Islam and believe in the divine inspiration of the Koran and the reliability of the Hadith. Islamic holy writs are pretty clear and grant Muslims the right and duty to lie to non-Muslims if it will further the cause of Islam.

So rather than simply accept the word, we must look at the actions of “moderate Muslims.” First and foremost I don’t expect honest, direct, answers to these questions. They will be qualified, or attacks on the questioner, or otherwise obfuscated and redirect with indirect answers. History is dotted with the likes of Mahmoud Abbas, who repeated the notorious actions the late Yasser Arafat who in English to Western/Israeli audiences routinely make lots of grand statements on peace but in Arabic to Muslim audiences routinely called for the eradication of Israel.

A vocal Muslim Libertarian argues that there should be separate court with separate rules for Islamists, and contracts Muslims enter should be treated differently and adjudicated differently than are contracts and laws for non-Muslims. Until and unless Muslims who claim to be Libertarian, openly and without qualification, call for all laws and all courts to treat everybody equally regardless of religion, sex, race, etc. their claims to be libertarian must be suspect. Unless we see moderate Muslims who claim to be Libertarian, openly and without qualification, publically denouncing the totalitarian and non-libertarian words, deeds, and actions of Islamists both here and abroad, their words must be suspect.

Right now it would be nice just to get clear unqualified answers to the above questions, that would be a start.

Monday, August 11, 2014

New Definition of Racism.

By Tom Rhodes, 8/11/2014

Let’s say you want to go visit a city, and have never been there before, and don’t have friends there to show you around. If you prepare and want to have a safe fun trip, you are a racist. Yes indeed, actually wanting to be safe is now the definition of racism. According to many articles in the MSM, like this one at Gawker. here is a list of desires that make you racist:

  • Wanting to avoid wandering into high crime areas.
  • Wanting to know where it is safe to go out and grab a cab.
  • Wanting to know if the good hotel deal on Priceline or Hotwire is in a safe area.
  • Wanting to avoid dimly lit sections of town with scant law enforcement coverage.
  • Wanting to report areas where cops are known to harass you because of your color.

    You see there is a new app you can get for your smart phone called SketchFactor that maps out “sketchy” neighborhoods.

    Although there is a place in the app to report racial profiling by cops, if you look at the app, there is no place to report “this is a black neighborhood,” or “lots of hispanics live here” but according to the news stories, because it was created by white guys, and reports on the relative safety of specific neighborhoods, it’s a racist app. < sarcasm font on > You see wanting safety while walking is a city is racist concept. How dare white people create an application that notes unsafe “sketchy” neighborhoods, don’t they understand that they need to be tolerant of other cultures where street violence is the norm. It’s prejudice to expect lawful behavior and actually inform your fellow citizens where they may not be safe. Desiring a safe neighborhood is racist. < sarcasm font off >

    Of course the rant at Gawker does pose the question; “Is there any way to keep white people from using computers, before this whole planet is ruined?” Yep if the people who want to know where it’s safe are white, they are racist, and those people using computers to communicate that certain neighborhoods aren’t safe are ruining the whole planet.

    What is painfully obviously, cries of “racism” are no longer an epithet to be feared and avoided. When wanting to be safe, and know what places are not safe is called “racist” that moniker no longer carries any weight. Cries of racism by progressives today, have totally “jumped the shark”, “nuked the fridge,” and are to be considered “totally bogus.” But I guess using such colloquialisms is I itself racist. Damn! I really need a sarcasm font

    “Truth’s nakedness is not concerned with whom it strikes - painfully, or with pleasure; responding appropriately to its ingenuous temperament, however, rewards perceptions of unbiased transparency.” ~ T.F. Hodge, From Within I Rise: Spiritual Triumph Over Death and Conscious Encounters with "The Divine Presence"
  • RCA of Southern Border Invasion

    By Tom Rhodes, 8/11/2014

    RCA, common acronym for Root Cause Analysis. We are suffering an invasion of children on our southern border. This invasion is mostly young men, men just ready to enter the labor market, and not children, but even if you accept the MSM propaganda and call them children, it is still an invasion. This invasion is the cause of the President of the United States acting outside his constitutional authority and legislating from the oval office. President Obama brought on this invasion the United States by legislating through executive order in 2012, declaring that he would stop deporting young illegal immigrants. Obama sent the clear, unmistakable, unequivocal signal that children entering the nation illegally would receive amnesty. Knowing existing laws require unaccompanied minors to be sheltered, fed, educated, and taken care of, there is no doubt the driving factor in the current invasion was Obama’s declaration, that he would forsake his oath of office, and usurp unconstitutional authority, and purposely fail to execute the law of the land and protect the constitution.

    For the last few DECADES the Democrats promise to cooperate and enforce the border, but routinely and steadfastly obstruct all efforts to do so. The Republicans play lip service, their actions also clearly indicate that they are unwilling to actually secure the border. The reason is clear, corporations want to depress US wages, and an oversupply of cheap labor from the third world, results in lowered labor costs. We don’t need a minimum wage law, there are not jobs Americans won’t do. There are jobs Americans won’t do for the wages corporations want to pay, and lots of third world people who will do those jobs, because even $5/hr paid in cash living as an illegal in the USA is better than anything they have in their third world country. Need to see a doctor, and all you have to do is show up at any emergency room in the USA, they cannot turn you away, and you don’t have to pay them. Compared to medicine and living standards in most of the third world, this is a good deal.

    Corporate America isn’t really interested in keeping low or no skill labor cheap. They want to keep skilled labor cheap. The law of supply and demand regulates labor just as it does everything else. If there is a glut, surplus, that exceeds demand, the value of what that surplus is traded is less. So if there is a shortage of unskilled labor, the cost to hire goes up, this dramatically increases the cost of skilled labor. If there is a labor shortage, and to keep a good hard working maid or stockboy you have to pay $15/hr. Then, the semi-skilled oil/tire change tech who was making $15/hr says why should I have to have the responsibility and do the training etc, if I don’t make more than the stockboy. So the semi-skilled wages increase proportionally to $17/hr. Then the certified auto technician who was making $38K per year doing tune-ups, brakes, etc. says, why should I study hard and pay to get and keep my certifications when I can change tires and earn just about as much with less responsibility and cost, so the skilled and certified tech wages increase to over $20/hr, etc. When there is a huge surplus of unskilled labor willing to work without benefits, etc. Then corporate America can tell the maid or stockboy who asks for a raise to pound sand, they can be replaced for cheap, this is trickle up economics, and it results in depressed wages for not just minimum wage jobs, but for all jobs.

    Because Obama declared that the USA would not deport children, and the USA has laws guaranteeing unaccompanied minors shelter, food, education, the parents in corrupt third world hell holes are sending their children to the USA. All parents want better for their children than they have themselves, and life as an illegal alien child in the USA is better than anything their parents can offer them in their home countries. You don’t see these law breaking criminal immigrants coming from the well to do of the third world, they are from the poor, oppressed, and hopeless.

    Obama has made it clear, his idea of compromise on the border issue is for Republicans to give him whatever he wants. He has made it clear that he won’t accept any suggestions or modifications from what he wants. That is not compromise, not bipartisanship, not leadership, that’s acting like a 4 year old who doesn’t get his way, so takes the ball and goes home. The problem is it’s not even Obama’s ball, it’s congresses ball, not only has Obama thrown a childish temper tantrum, but stolen authority that isn’t his. Obama and his unconstitutional usurpation of legislative authority is the sole cause of the invasion from the third world across our southern border. PERIOD. I wonder what corporations are pulling Obama’s strings to not only keep US labor wages stagnant, but actually depress those wages.

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

    Impeach Obama – NOT!

    By Tom Rhodes, 8/5/2014

    The whole Impeach Obama drive is drivel and a waste of time and effort from productive activities. First to impeach Obama you will have to prove to 2/3rds of the Democrat majority senate he’s guilty of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. At least according to the constitution. Obama is daring congress to try. The reason he is playing that gambit is not just because the senate is controlled by Democrats, but he has clearly Obama has not committed an impeachable offense.

    What he has done is violate his oath of office, he is changing laws, and not enforcing laws, or selectively enforcing other laws at his whim. Currently there are no laws nor constitutional method for congress to hold the president accountable, if the president says to congress screw you and acts like a dictator. All congress can do directly is withhold money. That’s it.

    Creating and changing laws is a power reserved to Congress, Obama has routinely changed law to suit his whims. Obama’s executive orders and actions may be unconstitutional but they are not illegal. Because Obamas actions are a mere violation of his Oath but not illegal they are not a high crimes or misdemeanors, nor are such actions treasonous, nor can his actions be proven to be bribery. Hence there is no constitutional grounds to impeach him.

    It is unconstitutional for congress to pass any law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is not illegal for congress to pass unconstitutional laws. Congress as a whole, nor congressmen individually cannot be charged with treason, bribery, or a high crime or misdemeanor for creating unconstitutional laws. The same principle applies to the president, unconstitutional actions by the president are not constitutional grounds for impeachment. Oops that is a giant whole in our constitution. Our forefathers never considered an elected official so devoid of character that he would willfully and purposefully violate his Oath of Office, and abuse his power as Obama has.

    There is no constitutional means of dealing with elected officials who violate their oath of office. There are no laws to punish elected officials who violate their oath of office. The presidential oath of office, doesn’t carry any legal nor constitutional ramifications. It can be ignored at will. Congress has passed clearly unconstitutional laws since repeatedly since 1787, many but not all get overturned when/if somebody sues the government.

    Refusing to enforce certain laws, selectively enforcing others, and inventing new laws, are clearly violations of his oath of office. His actions clearly show distain for both the rule of law, and equal protection. As much as I hate litigation, the GOP may have accidentally come across the only way to hold a president who violates his oath of office accountable, sue him. If they can prove to the courts that they have standing, then action might be possible, maybe.

    The big question is can congress show damages caused by Obama violating his oath. If they can then litigation against the president may succeed. But congress must show both standing and damages or the case will rightly get tossed out. I believe showing they have standing will be relatively easy. In as much as there is no legal requirement nor logical requirement that a president must do what congress dictates, I don’t believe they will be able to show damages.

    In any case, there are clearly not grounds for impeachment. Failure to enforce a law is clearly not treason, bribery, nor a crime. Changing the law to suit his whims is also not a crime, unconstitutional and a usurpation of power but not a crime. To hold the president accountable law must be created to make it a high crime for a president to willfully and knowingly change legislation by executive order. Such a law would of course be vetoed, so to create such a law will require 2/3’s of congress to support it. Good luck with that.

    I hope the suit succeeds as the alternative is that the Obama presidency has set precedent that we elect a despot with no legislative limits to his authority. I’m just as afraid that extreme republican will abuse that power as Obama has proven an extreme Democrat will.

    Monday, August 4, 2014

    Radical Idea to Reduce Cronyism

    By Tom Rhodes, 8/4/2014

    Federally elected officials receive essentially upper middleclass wages. The also get pension that guarantee they live upper middle class or better lives for life with just a few years of service. They get to vote for their own pay raises. Not one or two but a disproportionate number of federal officials become millionaires, within a short time. Usually like Reid, who sold his energy stock and purchased healthcare stock, just as congress created laws crippling the energy sector and granting healthcare a massive increase in customers who will be punished by law if they don’t buy healthcare. If only the rest of us could force customers to purchase in what we just invested.

    Being elected to federal office is supposed to be a “public service.” It is of course a fast way to the 1% club, through power and cronyism not hard work and providing a better service or product to your fellow man. You should note that as regulations that make it harder to start a business and compete with the current corporations that pay off government cronies, we see more Pelosi’s, Reid’s, and Bush’s in power. We hear the Clintons whining about being poor (with multi-million dollar contracts pending), etc.

    Being elected to congress or the presidency pays well, and the retirement benefits are awesome, and should remain as such. But the perverse incentives to screw the American people and greed associated with being allowed to create rules that make such elected officials richer and more powerful than their station as public servants rightly deserve must be ended.

    Here’s a radical idea to take away special interest and money’s control over federally elected officials. Create law that says once elected to any federal office you (and your spouse) must sell ALL your stocks, bonds, and investment properties, and invest ALL such money in US Savings Bonds. In fact not even have an interest bearing savings account at a bank, ALL savings must be in US Savings Bonds. While elected you may not have any other investments other than US Savings bonds, and may not hold any other employment, even self-employment, not even get paid for speaking engagements. And after leaving office for a period of time equal to the time served in office all investments must be in US Savings bonds, nor for that same time may you be employed by, consult for, or receive monies from any company or individual who was affected by your office.

    Think about it, the only investment federal officials should be allowed to have is in the country. Currently congress is exempt from insider trading laws. Why, you ask. Because that is exactly how lobbyists and big business payoff elected officials for the favors they get. Corporate Cronyism is rampant, it is only so rampant because large corporations own federally elected officials.

    This idea of limiting government officials to only investing in the government, would take away the ability to buy off federal officials. It would make many think twice about running for office as being elected would limit you to an upper middleclass life style, yes you would have a cushy pension and pretty much be set for life, but you would be giving up being in the 1%. Think about former VP’s Al Gore Jr. and Dick Cheney, Gore made himself wealthy on carbon trading and environmentalism, Cheney on the military industrial complex, the massive fortune both made was because they manipulated the system in ways illegal for the rest of us. If laws limiting investment and employment by federally elected officials were in play, both Gore and Cheney’s extremes would be limited.

    This rule should of course include non-elected bureaucrats, cabinet members, etc. Those positions are public servants and should not be in positions where rich individuals and companies can have undue influence. Unlike the private sector, government jobs still come with fixed benefit pensions, part of accepting such a benefits, should be the removal of outside money to influence government bureaucrats. That’s right if you work for the Food and Drug Adminstration, you should not be able to invest in anything other than US Savings Bonds, and not work for Monsanto, Pfizer, etc. after leaving your job for a period equal to that of the years you’ve served. It’s not like anybody could imagine that the head of the FDA would be influenced by big pharmaceuticals or agribusiness if he/she knew there was a huge multi-million dollar gig waiting when they left “public service.” Limit all investment by government employees who have decision making authority, to savings bonds, and their employment by companies affected by their public service.

    Of course it is a pipe dream expecting such a law to be enacted. Thinking the powerful, or those who seek power to give up guaranteed excess and being part of the 1% to serve their fellow Americans is a pipe dream. You have to know big business favors big regulations, it keeps the little guy from competing and gives them power in the industry.

    Just compare income inequality with volume of government regulation and interference. Obviously more government means more money and power for the 1%. You want to do away with income inequality, you want to do away with abusive government, you want to take the money out of politics. It’s easy, limit politicians ability to profit from their actions in office, not limit what people not in office can do. Make it a simple choice, choose “public service” and you are choosing to only invest in US Savings Bonds, and giving up a chance at being in the 1%. If that were the choice you’d have less Dick Cheney’s and Harry Reid’s who’ve literally become millionaires with jobs that pay upper middle class wages.

    Think about it, income inequality has dramatically increased in proportion to increase in government power. That is no accident.

    Thursday, July 31, 2014

    The Obama Administration Declares Women are Not Equal

    By Tom Rhodes, 7/31/2014

    In a lawsuit filed against the Pennsylvania State Police, Holder and the Department of Justice have clearly stated women cannot do the same job as men. They say that having equal requirements for both men and women is unequal. That is liberal logic.

    Here is a cold hard fact, an objective truth, equality is a myth. Equality is no more real than fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, vampires, or werewolves. Appealing to equality as a reason to grant some group favored status is simply engaging in meaningless rhetoric. Feminist appeal to equality is nothing more than attempting to guilt-trip men into giving them power to establish pro-female inequality.

    The Pennsylvania State Police are being sued by the Obama administration because they expect female cadets to complete the same minimum requirements as men. How is having the same standards for the same job for everybody regardless of group identification unequal? The fact is that 94% of men and 70% of women pass the state police physical fitness test. What that says is what everybody knows, men and women are not equal. It is not evidence of discrimination.

    The Obama administration wants women to have equal treatment, unless of course women can’t compete. Then they want special treatment. What this law suit says loud and clear, is that women cannot compete on equal terms. The DOJ irrational notion of disparate impact, is a tool for feminist hustlers to force preferential treatment for women. They are saying that even if a policy is equal and has no intention of discrimination if women can’t compete it’s sexist and a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

    So the Obama administration is saying women are not capable, therefore you must reduce your standards. Sorry to bust your bubble but men and women are not equal, they cannot do the same work and hence won’t have equal outcomes. If you believe otherwise, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy, unicorns, and the DH. It is only unrealistic, utopian, illogical, emotional thinking that could ever justify expecting men and women to be equal in the market place. They are not equal, they are different.

    Obama’s DOJ is suing those evil cops for having the audacity to treat female candidates the same as their male candidates. Don’t those evil bastards in Pennsylvania running the state police know that in Obama’s Fiefdom (formerly known as the USA), “equality” means treating everyone differently? In Obama’s utopia, anybody who cannot or will not perform to some standard is entitled to the same outcome as those who exceed or meet any standard. Welcome to the new utopian world of Obama. I hear that next month Obama will sick his DOJ attack dog, Holder, on the NBA and all teams will have to have at least one short fat old non-Hispanic white guy and one Asian woman, in their starting line-ups, the name of equality.

    Tuesday, July 29, 2014

    Don’t Tug on Superman’s Cape

    By Tom Rhodes, 7/29/2014

    Some Facts about the Palestinian Israeli war; If the Palestinians put down their arms today the violence would stop - PERIOD. If the Israeli put down its arms, the Palestinians would eradicate all the Jews. What Israel needs to do is declare WAR. They have the right to defend themselves and should treat Gaza the same as Rome treated Carthage, or the USA treated Japan. Total war with nothing less than complete unconditional surrender as an acceptable end. Screw proportional response, you want the violence to end, decimate the Palestinians in Gaza with such overwhelming force, death, destruction, violence, gore, and suffering, that nobody considers attacking them again.

    Jim Croce wrote a couple songs about messing with the wrong person on the South Side of Chicago; “Bad Bad Leroy Brown” and “Don’t Mess Around with Jim.” The basic idea is you pick a fight with the wrong guy and you will suffer. In the Movie the “Untouchables” Sean Connery explained it another way, “the Chicago Way.”

    These themes exist because they are true. If you were ever bullied you know there is only one way to stop a bully, and it isn’t the liberal mantra of reasoning or going and telling a teacher or some other authority. You can capitulate and minimize the damage, but the bullying won’t stop. Or you can pound the crap out him, get your big brother to pound the crap out of him, or get some friends gang up and pound the crap out of him, and the bullying will stop. The fact is to stop a bully you must make him realize that bullying will be met with fierce fighting and the pain associated with continued bullying will be far greater than the rewards. This is easily seen in fact is the fundamental plot in the movie “Back to the Future.”

    The international community is acting like a school principle, it’s only prolonging the conflict. The reason Hamas has no problem attacking Israel even though they know Israel has the capability of kicking their ass is they know in advance that whatever Israel does in response will be limited by calls for a cease-fire, backed by political and economic pressure from the international community.

    Israel was attacked, by vast numbers of rockets and invaded, from beneath through a mazes of tunnels. In as much as Hamas claims that its goal is to eliminate Israel, and has proven repeatedly to be the aggressor, and the Palestinian people choose to keep Hamas as their leaders, the violence can and will continue until the Palestinian people so severely suffer the consequences that they never again tolerate leadership that won’t live in peace with Israel.

    The overall barbarism of the Muslim world is self-evident; it repeatedly says by word and deed that it cannot tolerate even subordinate Christian minorities can hardly be expected to tolerate an independent, and more advanced, Jewish state whose very existence is a daily rebuke to their egos. The very idea of a Jewish state that not only exists, but is far more advanced, and can easily kick their ass, in the middle of the Arab world is not something the people of the Arab world will peacefully allow to exist.

    The non-aggression principle is clear, initiation of force is wrong, but just as clear is the right to self-defense, including overwhelming deadly force to crush those who aggress against you. Nothing in the non-aggression principle indicates that only a “proportional” response to aggression is acceptable. A woman shooting a rapist is clearly overwhelming disproportionate response to the aggression. Not only does such a response stop the current violent act of the rapist, it is a strong deterrent, to other would be rapists.

    Israel’s solution is to declare WAR, go building by building through Gaza and kill or drive all the Palestinians out, with such massive force to clearly demonstrate that the consequences of attacking Israel are so dire that no Arab country will start it. When attacked from across a border Israel has the right to counter attack and expand its borders as it did in Golan to protect itself. So long as it doesn’t initiate force, it has the right to use force, even overwhelming deadly force far disproportionate to the aggression perpetrated.

    Israel crushed the Arab aggressors in the 6 day war. It could and should do the same today. The result is that the violence would stop. Israel has shown it can and will live in peace with its neighbors if they do the same. The Palestinian people are not innocent, since they refuse to live in peace with Israel, and continue to choose leaders who call for Israel’s eradication, more of the same limited response will get the same results - continued not stop aggression from the Palestinian people. Israel has the right to and should crush them and drive them out with overwhelming disproportionate response. Nothing else will stop the violence.

    Israel should change the current tune of adopting “limited” and “proportional” response. They should be singing a new tune similar to US police use against sellers of raw milk; send in overwhelming force, a SWAT team. It’s clear the Palestinians have “Tugged on Superman’s Cape.” Israel should adopt Croce’s "You Don't Mess Around With Jim" as it’s anthem. Look at the map and it’s clear Israel is “Slim” in this tune.

    The Palestinians are like the skinny kid in this video:

    Wednesday, July 23, 2014

    Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

    By Tom Rhodes, 7/23/2014

    Not much of a headline, but the protection of Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is the why and purpose of establishing this great nation. Every group be it a country, a company, a club, a committee, a team, a church, have a purpose. If they didn’t then the group wouldn’t exist. That purpose may be as noble as the purpose the US exists, which is to protect the Live, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, of all individuals equally. Or the purpose may be as ignoble as selling drugs and killing rival gangs. Or as simple as having a good time sharing a common interest like quilting club, or book club, or beer club.

    The USA is unique in it was instituted not to control and rule over the people, but specifically to protect the people’s unalienable natural rights. First of these is the right to life. Don’t protect that right and the rest is inconsequential. Many in the LP have abandoned the idea that everybody’s life deserves protection. They have adopted the idea that some people’s lives are of such little value that they may be killed without reason and such murder should go unpunished.

    Abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human who doesn’t have the ability to protect themselves. Lie to yourself all you want but you cannot scientifically say that a fetus is not a unique human being. The clearly established scientific fact is that from the earliest stages of development, each of us is a distinct, living, and whole human being. Every embryology textbook out there says that each of us began as a single-celled zygote (see references below for some examples) find me an embryology text that doesn’t establish new life of mammals begins at conception. It is true that a new life at the point of conception has yet to mature, but the kind of thing that new life is, is clear. This is settled science.

    All that remains isn’t a question of if an embryo or fetus is a live human being, but the philosophical debate on how humans in their earliest stages of development should be valued. Don’t confuse the question of a person’s value with empirical fact they exist.

    Most pro-abortion people be they liberal, libertarian, conservative, or authoritarian are militant about their views. They fight to have opposing views silenced. The issue is not the value they place on the views of dissenters, nor the view pro-life people have on the views of the pro-abortion crowd. The issue is and has been and is the elephant in the room, the value we place on life itself.

    The pro-abortion crowd argues that that each and every human being does not have an equal right to life. The objective truth is abortion is the termination of a human life. No matter how they try to change abortion to being a choice or personal preference, abortion is a value decision that says the terminated human life has no value. Abortion cannot be a personal preference. Choosing chocolate or vanilla is a preference, choosing to terminate what is scientifically a distinct human being is not.

    Arguing that abortion is justified because a woman has a right to control her own body, is a classic logical fallacy. That position assumes there is only one body involved, that of the woman. Arguing that nobody knows when life begins is the same type of logical fallacy: it assumes contrary to what every embryology text says, that life begins at birth. That women will get illegal unsafe abortions if they weren’t legal, is called "arguing the consequence." Using that logic we should make resisting rape illegal to make it safer for rapists. The issue isn’t safety, it’s the status and value of the human being who is terminated. If the argument for abortion doesn’t apply to toddlers or the old and infirm, then it’s a bad argument. These arguments are based on irrationally assuming the falsehod that the unborn aren’t humans. The objective truth is they simply point out that some people have value and others don't. Those that don't have value don’t have rights based on some arbitrary standard, in this case age, but it could just as easily be race or sex.

    From conception, even as a single cell, the new human life begins at conception the new persons first specific behavior of self defense. The scientific basis for distinguishing one cell type from another rests on two criteria: differences in what something is made of (its molecular composition) and differences in how the cell behaves. These two criteria are universally agreed upon and employed throughout the scientific enterprise. They are not “religious” beliefs or matters of personal opinion. They are objective, verifiable scientific criteria that determine precisely when a new cell type is formed. Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.

    Subsequent to sperm-egg fusion, events rapidly occur in the zygote that do not normally occur in either sperm or egg. Within minutes, the zygote initiates a change in its internal state that will, over the next 30 minutes, block additional sperm from binding to the cell surface. Thus, the zygote acts immediately to oppose the function of the gametes from which it is derived; while the “goal” of both sperm and egg is to find each other and to fuse, the first act of the zygote is to prevent any further binding of sperm to the cell surface. Clearly, the zygote has entered into a new pattern of behavior, and therefore meets the second scientific criterion for being a new cell type.

    To be pro-abortion you must abandon the philosophy that all people have the same natural rights. To be pro-abortion you must take the position that only those people of some arbitrary stage of development, or have some arbitrary ability, are of value, and those who don’t meet that arbitrary standard don’t have rights. You must abandon the idea that “All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Humans differ immeasurably with respect to and degrees of development, capacities, accomplishments, and desires, they are nevertheless equal because they share a common human nature. How can there be any objective human rights that apply to anyone, if we deny that?

    The USA is unique, it was established to protect the rights of the people, specifically the right to life. You cannot be a rational libertarian and support abortion. You cannot rationally believe that there are unalienable rights and support abortion. If you support legalized abortion, you have made a value judgment on people, you are clearly saying that some people are of value and deserve to have their life protected and others are not. If you support abortion as a right, you simply say that a mature woman’s life is of more value than a less developed person’s life, and by virtue of her life having superior value, she can choose to terminate the life another person of less value without penalty.

    If you’re pro-abortion, the chances you’re an elitist who places the value of some people over others; to the point that some people’s lives have more value than others. The numbers don’t lie, look at who gets aborted, blacks, poor, minorities, are terminated in vastly disproportionate numbers. Rationally you would have to conclude that abortion has been an effective tool of elitists to decrease the population of “undesirables.”

    Rhetoric to confuse the question of a person’s value with the empirical fact they exist, doesn’t change the fact. Scientifically there is no argument, conception is the point at which a new unique human life is created. Rationalize and equivocate all you want, being pro-abortion is a value judgment. If you are pro-abortion you simply believe humans who don’t meet some arbitrary standard don’t have the right to life, much less the right to vote, speech, religion, liberty, property, or even to pursue happiness. If you’re a pro-abortion libertarian, you should be ashamed.


    "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
    "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
    [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

    "Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
    [Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]

    "Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
    [Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]

    "Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
    [Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]

    "The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
    [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

    "Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
    [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

    "I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
    [Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]

    "The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
    [Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

    "The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
    [Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]

    "Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
    [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

    "The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
    [Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]

    "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
    [O'Rahilly, Ronan and M?ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

    "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
    [Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

    Saturday, July 19, 2014

    Jeff Foxworthy - You Might Be a Liberal If ...

    No Jeff Foxworthy didn't write/say these descriptions of liberals, but . . . in homage to his virtual trademark of "you might be a XXXXXXX if YYYYYYYYY" here is how I believe he would describe liberals.

    You might be a liberal if you forcibly take money you don't deserve from the people who earned it and call THEM greedy for not wanting to give you even more.

    You might be a liberal if you say that asking for voter ID is racist while claiming that black Americans are too uniquely stupid and lazy to get an ID.

    You might be a liberal if say that the government should confiscate guns from NRA members and kill them if they resist and then claim that you have no idea why they think that they need guns to defend themselves.