The Diversity Principle - a Lie

By Tom Rhodes, 5/9/2013

"The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department." ~ Thomas Sowell

If you dared to ask if "diversity" as an institutional goal has worked and delivered the benefits promised, you will be denounced and declared a heretic. Diversity is the religion of the left, but if you dare compare it to reality, you are regarded as a bad person. If you dare to cite hard provable evidence noting that places with more racial diversity have worse race relations will get you labeled a racist. Failing to have uniformly accepted thought on the benefits of "diversity" is verboten.

Look at education; in the USA over the past 50 years we have allowed an increase in our population of about 20% from diverse third world countries. Compare the results of our education system, now seeped in diversity, to countries that are more homogenous, like Japan, the Netherlands, etc. The plain truth is that we are now routinely out performed from many nations, all with far less "diverse" populations. Japan, is a very racially homogenous country which doesn't allow Muslims into their society at all, and makes acceptance of any non-Japanese into their society very difficult. How does Japan achieve such high quality education without the strength of diversity, for which there is a "compelling" need, according to the leftist academics of our nation?

Leftists often try to compare the US's health care, education, and other systems to the Dutch. The Dutch have a high standard of living, excellent state run health care and education, etc. In trying to implement similar programs in the USA leftists ignore one very important fact. The Netherlands is 96% Dutch, not just white, not just northern European, but Dutch. They have a very small very homogenous population with a unified and homogenous culture. What they don't have is diversity. The French have allowed massive immigration from Muslim Countries, not to denounce Muslim culture, but Muslim Culture isn't French culture and is not compatible with traditional French Culture, so what their embracing of diversity has brought them is violence, instability, and are bordering financial ruin.

Look at violence; It is hard to argue that India isn't one of the most diverse nations on earth. Its various groups of people are so intolerant that its violence is worse than the US during the days of Jim Crow. Why do the diverse religious beliefs in Arab nations continuously keep them at war?

If you dare ask these questions, leftists, especially leftist academics will attack your motives and not answer the question. Even thinking that diversity may not be all it's cracked up to be cannot be tolerated. Don't point to the research.

In recent years, Putnam has been engaged in a comprehensive study of the relationship between trust within communities and their ethnic diversity. His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30 000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both between and within ethnic groups. Although limited to American data, it puts into question both the contact hypothesis and conflict theory in inter-ethnic relations. According to conflict theory, distrust between the ethnic groups will rise with diversity, but not within a group. In contrast, contact theory proposes that distrust will decline as members of different ethnic groups get to know and interact with each other. Putnam describes people of all races, sex, socioeconomic statuses, and ages as "hunkering down," avoiding engagement with their local community-both among different ethnic groups and within their own ethnic group. Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates, two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining inter-ethnic group trust, more diversity is still associated with less communal trust.
Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:

Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.

Lower political efficacy - that is, confidence in one's own influence.

Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.

Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.

Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).

Less likelihood of working on a community project.

Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.

Fewer close friends and confidants.

Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.

More time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment".

Demographics are measurable; when you see some meme on Facebook or other internet source decrying how these "red states" are some kind of evil compared to these "blue states". Go compare the Demographics makeup of those states. After you do the comparison, don't note it unless you are prepared to be labeled a racist. When you see some meme on Facebook or other internet source noting how much better XXXX is in other countries compared to the USA, compare the demographics. Note that most comparisons will exclude third world nations, and exclude more diverse nations.

What you aren't allowed to reference is the simple fact in the last 50 years the USA has allowed a nearly 20% increase in our population from third world countries and thus we are looking more like a third world country. Accepting "Diversity" as a "Compelling National Interest" means we are willingly abandoning the homogenous culture and values that created the freest country in the world with the formerly highest standard of living the world ever saw, and embraced diverse third world attitudes, cultural norms, and values.

Diversity isn't just racial; compare Northern European Protestant culture, values, and success, to Southern European Catholic culture, values, and success. Look at the expansion of the Western hemisphere and compare those colonized by Northern Europeans to Southern Europeans. Now don't think about the stereotypical phrase that is no longer acceptable to utter, "Protestant Work Ethic." There is no corresponding term "Catholic Work Ethic" or "Orthodox Work Ethic." Other countries decry the fact that Americans work more and play less, ignoring the fact that it is that unifying shared "ethic" that created a country where even the poor have an obesity problem.

Researchers examined whether protestant societies and individuals are more adversely affected by unemployment than others. Countries identified as being historically Protestant included the UK, Australia, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Switzerland and the US. Researchers allowed for a number of factors that could have skewed their results including age, gender, income, education, health, and marital status.

The results show that unemployment reduces happiness and well-being regardless of religious denomination, but that it has a 40 per cent additional negative effect for Protestants. "The negative effect of unemployment on self-reported happiness was twice as strong for Protestants compared with non-Protestants."

Dutch economist Dr André van Hoorn, who led the study said, "We found that the work ethic does exist, and that individual Protestants and historically Protestant societies appear to value work much more than others. At the individual level, unemployment hurts Protestants much more than it does non-Protestants."

Diversity will result in diluting the core values and beliefs that built this country, it already has. It can be seen in our slow march towards socialism and dismissal of the values that we once held uniformly as a nation. Diversity will lead to more violence here as it has in other parts of the world. The truth and hard evidence do not support the liberal mantra "diversity is strength."

Spending – Is Charity a Proper Use of Government Tax Dollars

Tax Day, a perfect day to review the well reasoned letter by Col Davy Crockett, explaining exactly why "entitlements" and other charity spending are not appropriate use of our tax dollars, not the job of our government, and why we pay way too much in taxes.

Enjoy

Not Yours To Give

by Col. Davy Crockett

---

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker --- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this house, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him."

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and, if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt it would but for that speech, it received but few votes and of course, was lost.

Later when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that I should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

I began, 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and-'

'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering right now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

This was a sockdolager, I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you.

I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it, is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional questions.'

'No, Colonel, there is no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'

'Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant amount of $20,000 to relive its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of, it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be and the poorer he is, the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000.

If you had the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.

Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought to appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.

The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports to be true, some of them spend not very credibly; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation and a violation of the Constitution.

So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger for the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

'I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him and I said to him:

Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it and thought I had studied it fully. I have head many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot.'

He haughtingly replied: 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

'If I don't, I said, I wish I may be shot, and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbeque and I will pay for it.'

No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbeque and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days and we can afford a day for a barbeque. This is Thursday. I will see to getting up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday and we will go together and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'

'Well, I will be there. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.'

'My name is Bunce.'

'Not Horatio Bunce?'

'Yes.'

'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and have been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before. Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the world - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

But, to return to my story. The next morning I went to the barbeque and to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me. In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened by speech by saying:

Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to see your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.

I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error. It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so. He came upon the stand and said:

'Fellow citizens, it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised to you today.'

He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before. I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress."

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday."

Nanny State Absurdity

By Tom Rhodes, 4/15/2013

If the Nanny state has its way, we'll all be sleeping on the ground on grass mats. No product is safe enough, perfect enough, or good enough. This week, the Consumer Product Safety Commission warned consumers to stop using 73,000 more - specifically, drop-side cribs made by a company called PT Domusindo Perdana These cribs aren't exploding, don't spontaneously roll over, and in fact have a perfect safety record. Repeat there has been none, nada, zilch, zip, nil, ZERO, not any injuries or deaths to infants or anybody else using them. Yet the government is warning everybody to stop using them and forcing the company to recall them.

There were three reported incidents where the drop side rails didn't function properly, no report of how or what the malfunctions were and, let me repeat, zero injuries. Se we have a product with 3 complaints out of 73,000 sold, a perfect injury free record for over 20 years, and our government is telling us it's not "safe."

It is this type of oblivious government nannyism that is and will continue to erode the trust the people have in their government. Why should we trust any of their safety notices when they have proven to be demonstrably false. This is just another example of Too Much Government. The reason why a crib costs about $200 instead of $75 isn't when the cost to manufacture it is somewhere in the $30 range isn't because of greedy capitalists. The reason we pay 3 to 4 times what we should, and what people in other country spay for similar products is our government. When a company can be forced to recall products produced and sold over 20 years ago, that have a perfect safety record, those costs have to be incorporated into everything they sell.

Our laws protect big companies like GE, GM, and Monsanto small manufacturers can't afford big dollar lobbyists and huge donations to politicians, and actions like this one make manufacturing in the USA almost impossible. You'd have to be an idiot to keep your manufacturing in the USA, to protect your assets from absurd regulations and law suits by our government smart companies keep small shell companies to resell their product in the USA, but their assets overseas where the US government has minimal access.

This is government run amok. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, at one time existed for valid reasons, to protect people from products sold as safe but in actually where unsafe. Their job is to look for danger, but they have become ridiculous. Recalling a product that sold tens of thousands of units from 1991 to 2008 with a spotless safety record and a mere three complaints is not protecting the public. When a perfect safety record is not safe enough, what is safe enough?

Stoning - a Barbaric Demise

By Tom Rhodes, 3/13/2014

The current death sentence passed to the LPF by the GOP and Democrats is lapidation. The LP and LPF are becoming viable and a serious threat to the statist parties in charge. This is not something they can or will tolerate any longer. So with their complicit friends in the press, they are going to attempt to destroy the viability of the LP, using infamous GOP hitman Roger Stone to destroy the LPF. The actions and rhetoric of Roger Stone make it clear that he's neither an advocate or promoter of the LPF, nor a serious candidate. I believe he's a shill to damage the image and keep the LP from main stream acceptance. As LPF Director at Large Pete Bloom so eloquently put it the Libertarian Party does "not advocate the personal choice of drugs or prostitution, we advocate the natural right of people owning their own bodies, and the responsible government that comes from using the rule of law to stop the use of force or fraud." This is not the position of Roger Stone.

His actions and words make it fairly obvious that is goal is to marginalize our party and make it unpalatable political body by focusing on what most Floridians still see as prurient interests. His rhetoric is to advocate prostitution, drugs and hedonism, not liberty and natural rights. This is self evident by his campaign Slogan, "Florida must get Stoned." His campaign reminds us of his well earned and self-perpetuated reputation as a Republican Hit man. It is not consistent with a professional political party, rather is completely inconsistent with someone actually seeking to grow good libertarian government. He's cultivating the exact image for himself (thus the LPF) that as a political hatchetman he would try to force on his victims.

He made his fortune in life by devising dirty political tricks from the time of Nixon forward that were funded by the Republican Party. If he were serious about helping and being part of the Libertarian Party of Florida, he'd have been participating in building the party, he'd share and use his media access to help the party, and bring both people and money to the LPF. He instead garners press coverage that his infamy has brought him to project unpalatable ideas and positions from an extreme viewpoint to denigrate the party he professes to support.

There is nothing in Stone's history to indicate he's a convert to libertarianism. He is the quintessential Republican who wants to smoke dope. The track record of our national party with recent converts like Bob Bar, Wayne Allen Root, and Gary Johnson have not been successful, and make us look like holding tank for wayward republicans, not a serious party with serious ideas.

The LPF has no control over our image anymore, like it or not the press is going to make Roger Stone the image of the LPF; an oversexed crack pot hedonistic image of dope smoking republicans looking for whores. Not an image the more traditional aged population of our center right state will trust or elect to office. The sound bites Stone will provide the press will be the death of us, and any serious Libertarian candidates and the serious libertarian message will be destroyed in the extremism of the Republican Hit Man. The LPF is about to suffer a vile slow painful death by Stoning.

Gun Control Realities

By Tom Rhodes, 4/8/13

The reality is the current gun control debate is about controlling the people, not guns, and the clear desire of statists in the Democrat party to the incremental disarmament of the American People. Although they try to say they believe in the Second Amendment, and "Nobody want to take away your guns," both their actions and words betray their intentions. Worse yet they don't even know what they are talking about.

Colorado Congress woman, Diana DeGette, showed the true intentions of Obama and the statists in the Democrat party when not once but three times demonstrated she's clueless about guns and accidentally let out their true desire. She is the lead sponsor of the cornerstone to proposed gun control legislation, the bill to ban high capacity magazines.

DeGette was soundly trashed and ridiculed across the internet (main stream media only reports statist approved stories) for her clear performance at the Denver Post forum on gun control. DeGette exposed the true intentions of gun controllers while simultaneously demonstrating she's totally ignorant of what she wants to legislate and restrict. She explained the genius behind banning high capacity magazines: "These are ammunition, they're bullets, so the people who have those now, they're going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available."

If you're reading this you probably know a magazine is a reloadable metal tube with a spring to feed bullets into a firearm, you'd think one of the primary sponsors of a bill legislating magazines would at least know the basics of what they are and how they are used. DeGette didn't, but once the firestorm on the net exploded over her "gaff" she quickly attempted damage control. Her spokesperson asserted the Representative meant to refer to "clips" not magazines. Now it's understandable for a non-gun person to confuse a clip and a magazine. A clip holds bullets for quick re-loading of magazines. But for a Congress woman who has "taken the lead on" this issue for years, this is arrogant ignorance at its finest. Not only are clips generally reusable like magazines, they are not the subject of DeGette's bill. Why on earth would she be referring to clips to correct her ignorance on magazines?

Now for strike three. At that same Denver Post Forum, when a senior citizen asked DeGette about having to rely on police response, rather than self defense, she reassured him noting that Denver police will be there within minutes, but "You'd probably be dead anyway." She made it clear that disarming or rendering the arms Americans have as useless because they don't have bullets is more important than the safety and well being of individual citizens.

Current law is clear, to prevent a backdoor gun registrations system, the law expressly prohibits the creation of "any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions." all it is supposed to do is verify that a purchaser is legally allowed to purchase a firearm, not track who has purchased what firearms, or even track if a person has purchased a firearm. The truth is the only loophole closed in the Leah-Schumer-Reid proposal for a "universal" background check, is the one that prohibits a national firearm registry. The loose language of the bill would allow the Department of Justice itself to keep centralized records of who received what guns and where, by sale or gift from one individual to another. It's gun registration no matter what they try to tell us.

Saying that the proposed universal back ground checks aren't a gun registration, is a lie. Without keeping track of the purchases, transfers, and components of hundreds of millions of guns and gun owners, they could never enforce their desires; they want and will keep permanent records of all firearm sales. This is a defacto gun registration system. What we are asked to believe is that our government can't keep track of its own borders or the 12 million people who live here illegally, but can keep track of the purchases, transfers, and components of hundreds of millions of guns and gun owners without registering all guns.

Why the fear of gun registration? Because not just in Europe but right here in the USA gun registration has led to gun confiscation. Not only could it happen here in the USA it has. In California after passing a law requiring registration of assault weapons, it then changed the law informed registered owners to turn them in. Letter from Calf. telling you to turn in your gun.

The statists have let it slip, the want total control of civilian gun ownership, the start is to identify where and who has the guns. Have no fear they won't send SWAT teams to your house to confiscate your gun, you'll just get a letter saying ". . . . our records indicate that you own a Bushmaster Model AR15 SN: 123456780, purchased 1/1/2013 from Joe's Gun Shop. Please turn this weapon in to your local Police dept. Should you fail to do so within 30 days an APB for your arrest will be issued, and the IRS will freeze all your bank accounts, and the Department of Transportation will revoke your driver's license. . . . "

Marriage - My Changed Position

By Tom Rhodes, 3/6/2013

I am a self proclaimed Christian Libertarian, and have defended the traditional definition of marriage and been against so called Gay-Marriage. My position has been that government shouldn't be in the marriage business, Period! Now I renounce my position and now support broader definitions of marriage. Not because I've changed my views or beliefs, but pragmatically it would be a wonderful method to hamstring government a little. The basis of legal homogamy is that if two people "love" each other they should be able to have long term committed relationship and legal rights as if they were "one" regardless of sex.

As the discussion in the Supreme Court has indicated, once homogamy is legal, the rationale for limiting polygamy will be non-existent. In fact a wide variety of "marriage" types would be viable. Read Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" for an in depth discussion on various types of marriages including two men and one women called a "troika," as well as "polyandries, clans, groups, lines, and less common patterns considered vulgar by conservative people."

Here is why I now support legal homogamy: It will save the family farm. Every year family farms are broken up and sold (usually to big conglomerates) because of the death of the farmer, the inheritance taxes are so great to pay them the farm must be sold. Once marriage has been redefined to be a joining of people who love each other not just a man and one or more women, the family farm will be saved. Legal homogamy will lead to the end of all inheritance taxes. As Jeremy Irons correctly identified, a father could marry his son to avoid inheritance taxes.

The homosexual mantra is that if two individuals love each other they should be able to marry each other and receive the legal benefits of marriage. This will be a boon to partnerships of all kinds, two, or even three, four, or a dozen, who are partners in a business and want to avoid taxes and other legal intrusion of the government in their business could just get married. This would pretty much end any type of inheritance tax and insure the orderly transition of property from generation to generation without it being gobbled up by the government.

Like virtually all government regulation, there are unintended consequences. If we accept the idea that homosexuality is no longer immoral, what grounds do we have for not similarly declaring incest, polygamy, or any type of "love" to be morally acceptable as well? The homosexual lobby has not offered logical reasoning to this question. If traditional marriage, accepted by virtually all societies for thousands of years is no longer valid, why can't any variation of marriage be valid?

The objective truth is that two men or two women cannot ever marry because marriage is a particular relationship between a man and one or more women. Marriage and its definition predate every government on earth. Government didn't create marriage so should define it either. What is clear is that if the government doesn't get out of the marriage business, marriage will be meaningless and just another means of avoiding government taxes, and not a foundational institute of society.

In as much as the government generally perverts and corrupts most things it touches, marriage is no exception. Let's go ahead and allow any type of "marriage" to be legal, it will be the best method to insure pass down our property to our progeny and other loved ones. Widow or Widower near death yourself, don't want all your property to get gobbled up in taxes the solution is easy, marry your grandkid, that way when you die all your wealth is passed down without the government getting its greedy paws on it. Legalizing homogamy makes "marriage" meaningless, as long as we are going to do that, let's take advantage of it and screw the government out of inheritance taxes all together.

It's about Honesty

By Tom Rhodes, 4/12/2013

Barack Obama demanded a "national conversation" about gun control. What he didn't demand was an "honest" conversation about gun control. The reason he left off the word "honest" is because he has proven again and again to use lies to promote his irrational hatred for those who would be self reliant and not depend on the largess of government for protection.

Lets start with the Fast and Furious lie that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico were from US gun dealers. In sworn testimony before congress, Bill McMahon, deputy assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, swore that only eight percent of the arms recovered in Mexico were from licensed gun dealers, noting: Of the 100,000 weapons recovered by Mexican authorities, only 18,000 were determined to have been manufactured, sold, or imported from the United States, and of those 18,000, just 7,900 came from sales by licensed gun dealers. Considering 2500 were known to have been smuggled into Mexico by the Obama administration as part of Fast and Furious it's clear the 90% number was a known lie propagated by Obama and company.

Now the more recent 40% lie. Obama claimed that 40 percent of the gun purchases in the nation are conducted without a background check. It is another outright knowing lie. The Statistics he used were not only 20 years out of date but included all transfers not purchases. The survey he used was started before the Brady Bill became law and background checks were required. Even the generally supportive of Obama, Washington Post had to report on this lie, giving Obama three Pinocchio's .

There are two key problems with the president's use of this statistic: The numbers are about two decades old, yet he acts as if they are fresh, and he refers to "purchases" or "sales" when in fact the original report concerned "gun acquisitions" and "transactions." Those are much broader categories of data.

As we noted before, the White House said the figure comes from a 1997 Institute of Justice report, written by Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago.

This study was based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. In fact, the questions concerned purchases in 1993 and 1994, and the Brady Act went into effect in early 1994 - meaning that some, if not many, of the guns were bought in a pre-Brady environment.

Digging deeper, we found that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus six percentage points.

. . . .

The Police Foundation report did not break out gun purchases, so in January we asked Ludwig to rerun the data, just looking at guns purchased in the secondary market. The result, depending on the definition, was 14 percent to 22 percent. That's at least half the percentage repeatedly cited by Obama. (In a recent article for National Review, Cook and Ludwig wrote "we don't know the current percentage - nor does anyone else." But they say if the percentage is lower it actually strengthens the case for expanding background checks because it would be less expensive to implement.) Since our initial report on this statistic appeared, The Washington Post in February included a question on background checks on a survey of Maryland residents, asking whether they went through a background check during a gun purchase in the past 10 years. The result? Twenty-one percent say they did not.

Coincidentally or not, 21 percent falls within the 14-to-22 percent range for gun purchases without background checks in the 1994 survey.

So Obama wants a national conversation, but his actions clearly dictate he wants the conversation not to be based on logic, reason, and practical solutions. His actions clearly demonstrate he wants the conversation to be one sided, based on lies and emotional rhetoric to the exclusion of truth and substantial debate.

When the President has deliberately chosen to distort facts, and lie to the people to promote and instill further restrictions on fundamental rights he has in fact destroyed the ability of "moderates" to effect any meaningful discussion much less change. The clear exposure even by liberal supportive media, of the lies and distortions by the government make any honest debate impossible. Obama's brief 5 years in office is so filled with clearly demonstrated lies and deceptions that no rational person could reasonably consider the arguments he or his representatives present on any topic as truthful or trustworthy. Not just on Gun Control but on oil, healthcare, immigration, spending, in fact virtually every major issue, the default position of the Obama and his Whitehouse is to lie, and distort the facts. The reason compromise is so difficult with Obama, is because he and the entire Democrat party have proven that they are not trustworthy.

Having been caught in multiple lies, especially concerning gun control, how can anybody reasonably work with the Democrats in an honest conversation?

GOP Stands for Nothing

By Tom Rhodes, 3/5/2013

The Republicans are attacking their roots, trying to “rebrand” themselves, and figure out why they lost and are not in power. The answer is simple, they don’t stand for anything, are inconsistent. “Big Government Lite” is not a solution to the leftist, statist, positions of the Democrats. The Democrats have credibility the Republicans don’t because they at least honest and unapologetic about standing for bigger government, more government control, and increased statism.

Consider the GOP position on gasoline taxes. As mark Hendrickson noted in his Forbes article, GOP legislators are against higher gasoline taxes to pay for infrastructure repairs to roads and bridges, actually complaining that motorists would end up bearing the cost of the tax hike. Duh! Motorists use the roads why shouldn’t they pay for their maintenance. The GOP position is that those who use the roads shouldn’t bear the cost of the roads? Taxes like fuel taxes expressly used to build and maintain roads are fair, just, and voluntary. Don’t want to pay the tax, ride a bike, live in a city and walk, etc. Want to pay less tax, drive less, get a more fuel efficient vehicle, etc.

Crying Social Security is insolvent and voting to reduce soc security revenue by 2% in 2010 is another example of inconsistent, non-policy. Does the GOP believe that government should be involved in citizens retirement funding? If so vote to fund it, if not get the government out of it, but take a consistent stand. The GOP claim of fiscal responsibility isn’t followed with voting or actions that support their claim. How is voting to reduce revenues for specific projects without voting to cut those projects spending fiscally responsible. The GOP claims they want to limit government spending, but then consistently claim that decreasing part of planed increases to spending is cutting spending. At least the Democrats are honest about not caring about deficits, and wanting to ever increase the size and power of government, they are honest statists.

Every time a Republican votes for some unfunded or underfunded government spending, they are loudly proclaiming their hypocrisy. Voting to try and improve the welfare state, rather than getting rid of it, is in direct conflict with the ideas they espouse. No rational voter can be assured of what the GOP will do, Obama won in 2012 with less total votes than he had in 2008, yet a higher percentage of the vote. The reason is clear, the GOP offered a statist, Romney, whose promise wasn’t to make government smaller, but protect big business. GOP voters didn’t bother, as the author of Romney care, the foundation of Obamacare, clearly didn’t represent the ideas the GOP claim to espouse.

As I’ve been claiming for years, the reality in voting patterns and protection of individual liberty the GOP is not functionally different than the Democrats. The reality is with Democrats promising food, clothing, and shelter to all at the expense of tax payers, and more Big Brother to take care of you, and the GOP promising smaller government but consistently delivering more power to Big Brother, why vote GOP, they are liars?

Last Night on John Stossel’s show arch conservative and Republican cheer leader Glen Beck boldly proclaimed that he was a Libertarian, renounced many of his past positions as wrong. Welcome aboard Mr. Beck, your newfound conversion to limited government is welcome. You have learned and now agree that voting for the GOP isn’t going to make you freer, reduce the size of government or even, as promised, reduce your actual tax burden. Voting for Democrats you will get what they promise, bigger government and more taxes. There is a clear different choice, but . . . . . that choice actually attempts to do what it says, reduce the size and scope of government. The Libertarian Party where elected won’t give you anarchy, but will wherever it can actually reduce the size of government and work to limit the power and authority of the state. That means it will let you keep more of what you earn but it won’t take care of you. Having the freedom to keep what you earn assumes you are responsible to provide for yourself.

As Libertarians, we need to welcome those abandoning the GOP with open arms. They don’t have perfect libertarian philosophy, but only accepting perfect libertarians hasn’t worked out so well for us. We are better off with and can make a bigger difference with libertarian leaning conservatives joining us than kicking them out because they are still learning and don’t quite get the minutia of this libertarian thought.

Is VP Responsible?

By Tom Rhodes, 3/1/2012

Does Brian Szymanski living in Green Acres Delaware have a case against VP Joe Biden. Taking Delaware's Favorite Son and Vice President Joe Biden's advice Mr. Szymanski discharged his shotgun outside his back door. The result was the New Castle County Police arresting him and charging him with reckless endangering in the first degree and discharging rifles or other explosives. No injuries or property damage were reported.

While explaining that you don't "need" and assault weapon, and are better off with a double barreled shotgun, Joe Biden publicly said he had advised his wife, Jill, "if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house." Joe Biden is part of the ruling elite; he knows that if he or his wife had done as he recommended she would not face any criminal charges. What he and the other ruling elite in Washington forget is that unlike them, everybody else is expected to follow the law.


Not only was Biden's advice bad advice, he recommended something that is clearly illegal. In Joe Biden's home state, Delaware, the law is clear; it is only legal to use deadly force if there is reason to fear imminent loss of life. As Mr. Szymanski found out shooting a gun in the air results in felony reckless endangering and other charges. Mr. Szymanski is obviously not all there, he probably didn't even know that his actions were the exact actions Vice President Joe Biden advised his wife and all of America to take. Biden has once again proven himself to be a gaff prone idiot, unless of course he's a sneaky cunning Machiavellian manipulator who is trying to dupe law abiding gun owners into illegal in order to forfeit their gun rights. . . . Can't be; you know the old expression, if it walks like an idiot, talks like an idiot, then it must be an idiot; Biden's an idiot.

Shooting anytime you don't know exactly what you're shooting at is irresponsible and a clear violation of the most fundamental firearm safety rules. These rules are part of every set of rules at every shooting range, or rules recommended by any gun organization, or any group that uses guns for any reason. Nobody who owns a gun and has bothered to read any owner's manual or taken any concealed weapons course hasn't heard or read them in some form or another.

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY

RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

Joe Biden's recommendation was not only ill advised and contrary to the most basic gun safety rules, and illegal in his home state, they clearly demonstrate his ignorance. His ignorance makes him dangerous, as are most of the ignorant ideas uneducated anti-gun leftists spew regularly.

Too bad we don't actually hold politicians accountable. If we did then Brian Szymanski would have a case against VP Joe Biden. But the reality is that both the rule of law and equality under the law are dead in the USA. The laws that apply to you, me, and most everybody else do not apply to the elitists in Washington. Follow the advice of the ruling elite at your own peril.

Self Defense; Liberals Don't Get It

By Tom Rhodes, 2/28/2013

Liberals simply don't understand self defense. Period. Take VP Biden's latest gaff where he truly demonstrated both his ignorance. Saying we don't "need" "assault weapons," and we should "buy a shotgun" is both dumb and dangerous. Biden argued that double-barreled shotguns are easier to use than modern sporting rifles like the AR15, which they aren't. He then went on to recommend, when you suspect a dangerous situation, you should simply walk outside and fire a couple of shotgun blasts into the night. Not only is he recommending criminally negligent actions his recommendations violate fundamental firearm safety.

If you are dumb enough to follow Biden's recommendation you are screwed. You are now standing outside, with an unloaded shot gun that is slow to reload, slow to maneuver, and hot to the touch. If you actually hit what you weren't aiming at you may have murdered an innocent person and endangered your neighbors or bystanders. How would you explain to a jury that you didn't know what you were shooting at, or near, or what you were going to hit?

A double barreled shotgun is not suitable for self-defense; it is an antique technology barely more modern than a muzzle loader. Reloading with speed takes lots of practice, and room. Their break action, shell removal and replacement, is far more difficult than pressing a button and inserting a magazine. They are light and generally have a massive "kick" that makes them unsuitable for smaller people with less upper body strength. If there is more than 1 or 2 criminals, you are in real trouble. Considering most of the violent crime in the US is in cities, and associated with gangs, where a person is most likely to need self defense a large cumbersome 2 shot weapon that is slow to re-load is not a good choice for self defense.

The abject ignorance of leftists concerning self-protection and preservation is not just their absence of understanding the technology of self-defense, but their claimed expertise. It is sad what qualifies as an "expert" by liberals. Not just the continued mis-naming of automatic weapons, but the general mis-characterization of weapons in general. When the leftists in the press bring out people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about to most of gun toting redneck America, their invariable ignorance of firearms, is so blatant that one can only assume they are driven by emotions not facts. Considering the intelligence and knowledge they claim the only assumption that can be made is when a liberal is making such obvious "errors" in discussion on firearms they are doing so purposefully. Most of America calls that lying.

ABC covering up for Michelle Obama's gaff on saying teens had access to "automatic" pistols is just another example of the fact that either the left is totally ignorant or believes most of the people are stupid. In either case it's a lie.

Obama's desire to fundamentally change America can be summed up in the actions of his Secretary of State,John Kerry, who on foreign soil called Americans and American freedom "stupid." That is all you need to know about liberals attitude toward this nation, the Constitution, and the average American.

Liberals talking about firearms are lying. Period. The leaked internal Justice Department memo noted that the proposed assault weapons ban would have no effect on gun crime or gun violence. They know the truth, they want to confiscate guns because they fear an armed people. They think you're too ignorant and gullible to realize the truth. They are using emotions not reason, facts, or logic to attack the Second Amendment. Why, because it works. Just like they did in New Orleans after Katrina, the government will come and take your weapons. They think you'll willingly give them up, I think they are wrong. Just like for self defense AR15's not double barreled shotguns and semi-automatic pistols not antique revolvers, are the self-defense weapons of choice for most Americans; We the People are not stupid, and will not willingly give up our individual rights without a fight. If Washington DC does like the ruling elite tried to do in 1776, they too will start a war with the people that they cannot win.

As equality under the law, and the rule of law, are relegated to mere anachronisms of the past, We the People will abandon any compulsions, morals, or customs to obey the dictates of the ruling elite in Washington. Already the duly elected sheriff's of the country are pledging to the people, and the ruling elite in DC to not only not enforce further restrictions on the Second Amendment, but arrest federal agents who attempt to do so. We the People can and will simply ignore the dictates of DC. We do so concerning drugs, we do so concerning speed limits, we do so concerning seat belts, we do so concerning a huge variety of the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations and laws that the ruling elite dictate through unelected "regulators." The willful ignorance of the ruling elite may cause repercussions they can't fathom.

We've compromised enough, no more; the evidence can be seen in every sporting goods store in America, where the shelves are bare and AR15's and ammo fly off the shelf as soon fast as it can be shipped. Americans are arming themselves and will not give up those arms; Period! The government need not fear the armed citizen, unless of course they become too oppressive. Not all of America is the wussified liberals of the big city; much of America is fiercely independent and doesn't depend on government or want government to take care of us, we can and will do that for ourselves. We believe the job of government is to protect our rights, from those who would use force or fraud to infringe upon them. You see most Americans are truly libertarian, unwilling to use force against others but equally willing to use force in self defense.

In our history the turning point that changed a people trying to work with the ruling elite to get fair treatment from government into a war, our American Revolution, was when the government tried to take away and control the weapons of the people. Paul Revere's ride was not simply to warn that the "British are coming" but to warn that the government is here to take our weapons. All experience has shown that We the People are disposed to suffer the evils of oppressive government, while such evils are sufferable, than to right ourselves and abolishing the forms to which we are accustomed. But when the government abuses and usurpation of our rights, invariably evinces a design to reduce us to absolute despotism, it is not only our right, but our duty, to throw off such government. It's called self-defense and liberals don't get it.