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

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Thanksgiving - Celebrating Private Property's Triumph Over Collectivism

By Tom Rhodes, 11/23/2015
I doubt anybody will notice but this as a repeat of my 2010 Thanksgiving article

As you know the original colony to Plymouth celebrated thanksgiving with the Indians in November of 1623. The Pilgrims arrived in December of 1621, and began their colony as a commune, and organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share the work and produce equally. This experiment again proved what the ancient Greeks observed eons before. As Aristotle wrote, "That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it."

The Pilgrims faked illness rather than working the common property. Some even stole, despite their Puritan convictions. The result was as winter of 1622 set in, they did not have enough food and provisions set for the winter and famine and privation ran rampant by the spring of 1623 only 5 women had survived. Gov. William Bradford wrote in his diary, "So as it well appeared that famine must still ensue the next year also, if not some way prevented.

The problem is that when people can get the same return with less effort, most people make less effort. This was an early harsh and historically repeated lesson that socialism and communism result in less production even to the point of starvation. Thus again proving that the rules set to us by God are best to live by. 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15

Later of the colonists, Bradford said, they "began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length after much debate of things, (I with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land. . . This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many."

Because of the change, the first Thanksgiving could be held in November 1623. Because of the abundance the Pilgrims not only were able to feed themselves, but to take care of those among them who try as they might failed to do so. It was private charity that took care of those less fortunate.

Thanksgiving is clear proof and evidence of the triumph of private property, connecting effort to reward, demonstrating that when everything is “shared equally” it incentivizes each person to contribute as little as possible to get their “equal” share. Whereas with every pilgrim given private property produced abundance which they could then trade with others for things they lacked. The free mutual exchange for mutual benefit makes the entire community richer.

We should all be thankful that we do not have to learn the lessons of protecting private property in the same deadly way that the pilgrims. Thanksgiving is the quintessential American holiday, copied by many other countries; it is a polar opposite of May Day. On Thanksgiving, we celebrate the fall of communism and are thankful for the abundance God provides through the free market.

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

So Much for that Scientific Consensus

by Tom Rhodes, 11/3/2015

The scientific consensus on global warming simply doesn’t exist. NASA confirms Antarctic ice growing not shrinking. If global warming were a fact, and the science supported it, the Antarctic ice would not be growing and the papers and scientific research would confirm the facts.

The published papers on Antarctic ice are conflicting and not in agreement. Jay Zwally, a NASA glaciologist and lead author of the NASA paper released Friday confirms there is not scientific consensus noting that their findings compared to others are not in agreement, saying, “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.”

The so-called scientific consensus concerning global warming simply does not exist.

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Evil of Wealth Disparity

By Tom Rhodes, 10/20/2015

Hearing the Democrat Debate, and the cry from progressives all over the social media, one thing is clear. They firmly believe that the inequality in wealth distribution in the USA is a moral evil. For some reason the left takes the idea that because “all men are created equal” that if they don’t share an equal portion of society’s wealth that somehow society is not treating them equally hence a society that does not have equal distribution of wealth is an evil society.

The left’s solution is to make the wealthy more poor, except for themselves. Hillary make $200K per speech, if she chose she could give a poor family $100K every time she speaks and help lift that family out of poverty and still take home $100K per speech. She obviously doesn’t actually believe in redistribution of her wealth. The question is how does Hillary Clinton making $200,000 per speech hurt the poor? What is morally wrong about Hillary charging as much as others are voluntarily willing to pay for speaking hurt the poor.

Obviously there is no moral problem with Hillary making mega bucks. What poor family can’t find a job because society choose to pay Hillary $200K for a few hours work? How did her highly paid speech writer, who earns a very good living, hurt the poor by voluntarily accepting a part of Hillary’s evil wealth in exchange for her labor hurt the poor? What moral dictum did Hillary violate earning millions of dollars from her political experience?

If because all people being created in God’s image have equal worth, thus deserve an equal share of society’s wealth, they why doesn’t a murderer, or rapist, or child molester deserve an equal share of society’s wealth? If their actions and impact on society don’t determine what wealth society should give them, what does? If you believe that their actions (murder, rape, child molestation), should result in society’s punishment, and exclusion (to protect others in society who behave acceptably), then you don’t believe everybody should receive the wealth of society equally, rather people should be punished, banished, or rewarded based on their actions in society.

If the poor have their basic material needs of food and shelter met, the existence of a big gap between the poorest and richest is not a moral problem. Once basic needs are met, any difference in what wealth individuals have or don’t have is based on their individual contributions to society, and how others voluntarily exchange their labor and capital with others for their labor and capital.

There are economic factors that drive the largest wedge between the wealthy and poor. That factor is government getting in the middle and controlling who can and can’t freely exchange capital and labor. Compare income inequality from the 50’s to today. Compare government regulations from the 50’s to today. More government = more wealth inequality. Uber and Airbnb are prime examples of the problem with government. The government is trying to stop poor individuals from competing with big rich companies. You own a car or house and the government says that you can’t use your property to earn more wealth. The government is causing disproportionate wealth inequality. What business is it of the government if you let somebody use your spare bedroom for a night in exchange for $40. You and the person in your spare bedroom are voluntarily exchanging capital for use of private property, thus voluntarily transferring wealth. The government is saying that you must transfer that wealth to a big corporation that runs a hotel and cannot choose voluntarily to do so without government permission.

The inequality of wealth and income are only a moral failure of society if the poorest’ s basic needs aren’t met. Morally what most matters is if the rich got that way honestly. If the wealthy got rich morally and legally then the income gap is not a moral problem. Because the government is hindering individuals from using their labor and property to garner wealth and forcing others to use government approved cabs or hotels, rich cab companies, hotels, etc. are wealthy immorally.

Consider Uber, to drive a car you own you must have a license to drive, proving you can do so safely, and insurance to protect others in case you have an accident. So all uber drivers have proven to society that they can safely drive, and can cover the expenses if they do harm to others while driving. Why should there be any restrictions for that licensed and insured vehicle and person from offering their labor and property to another in exchange for their capital? One reason, to keep the poor, poor, and the rich, rich. The ruling elite want to control who has and doesn’t have wealth.

What is evil about a little old lady renting her spare bedroom out for a night, how does that hurt the poor? What is evil about a college kid driving other students around for a fee, how does that hurt the poor? What is evil about Hillary charging $200K to talk, how does that hurt the poor?

What the left refuses to do is recognize that the actions people take determine how others in society voluntarily reward them, or how society corporately punishes them. The biggest common factor in chronic poverty, persistent violent crime, and remaining impoverished is easily recognized. It is a common action (behavior) of those who are chronically impoverished in communities plagued with violent crime. It is not politically correct to speak it out loud.

There are noneconomic factors that make being poor permanent. These factors include not having a father in one's life, growing up with no family, no social emphasis on education, women having children without a man, and men having children without committing to the mother of those children. It is exceedingly rare for a married man and woman with kids to be persistently poor. A man and woman marrying may start out poor, but rarely do they as they have and raise children remain poor. Those noneconomic factors exist in greater quantity now for the same reason as the economic factors which create inequality of wealth. Too much government which rewards broken families, and punishes through wealth confiscation intact families.

The Evil of Wealth Disparity arises from the evil of Too Much Government. Freedom and Liberty in the past proved to be a fairer distributor of society’s wealth. However Freedom and Liberty have one basic problem that scare many. Liberty is not safe! With Liberty there is no guarantee that everything will turn out safe, that everybody will get a portion of what society offers based on their actions and contributions to society. As our society has become from feminized, the weaker, fairer sex, which values security over liberty, has continually traded liberty for security. As our Forefather Ben Franklin intoned, we now have neither liberty or security. The poor are not free to use their meager capital (a used car) to work their way from poverty, and as the tens of thousands of violent crime victims in Chicago can attest, they are no longer secure. All a result of Too Much Government. As polemist Thomas Paine so aptly put it, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Mass Migration is Proof that All Cultures are Not Equal.

By Tom Rhodes, 9/16/2015

Orthodox Jewish rabbi, Daniel Lapin in a television special, “What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?” replied to that very question this way; “The easiest way to answer the question of whether life on planet earth is better because Jesus walked Jerusalem or not is very simple, and that is: Just watch the way people vote with their feet. Watch where the net flow of immigration is in the world today. Is it from Christian countries to non-Christian countries or the other way around? It is so obvious.”

All cultures are not equal. Some are better than others. Islam as a culture is inferior to the nominally Christian culture of the West. Over 4 million have left Syria in the past 4 years. The masses leaving the Islamic Middle East and north Africa are streaming into Europe, they dash not to Hungary and former communist Eastern Europe but to the heart of Christian Europe, Germany, England, etc.

No reason to ask why, the reason is so obvious that it need not be said. In fact because modern progressives are trying to attack the very reason that masses, when they vote with their feat, choose particular destinations: Christianity. Even if those same masses don’t accept or acknowledge that rationale, they gravitate to Christian nations.

The main reason behind the mass migration appears to be the suppression of freedom and the violence wrought under various Islamic governments and the relative freedom afforded by formerly Christian Europe. The mass migration we are seeing is prima facie evidence of the inferiority of Islamic culture. ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, and the other Islamic movements have, and are, failing at curing the tribulations of Arabic civilization. History and current events demonstrate that when Cultures based on Islam are left to act on their own, and not restrained by some outside force, always results in a violence and tyranny, and forceful aggression against other nations.

This proves that the idea that one culture is as good as another, that basically all cultures are equal, is just not true. Cultural relativism as an idea is demonstrably false. People are rejecting this idea propagated by overeducated idiots and voting with their feet. Whether the realize it or not, people are gravitating to countries whose cultures are rooted in Christianity.

Western society, be it European or American no longer acknowledges the contributions of Christianity, but as I’ve stated many times before America is at its root a Christian Nation.

For generations Cubans have been fleeing atheist Cuba. Just like the people in the tyrannical middle east, they flee cultures rooted in Christianity. People don’t build boats out of garbage and float across hurricane strewn, shark infested, waters to migrate to cultures that aren’t based on Christianity.

Are the Middle Eastern migrants risking their lives and fortunes to get into China? India? Turkey? Russia? The answer is unequivocally NO! What they want is liberty and freedom, and that isn’t offered by all cultures.

The sad tragic fact is that the USA is losing liberty and freedom, that loss coincides with the countries rejection of its Christian roots. Freedom and Liberty are blessings from God, and they flow directly from our Judeo-Christian traditions. That is blasphemy to most Libertarians, but without a doubt libertarianism is the political expression of the bible. The ideas of the rule of law, equality under the law, self-reliance, etc. etc. etc. are all biblical in nature.

Christ sums up most of libertarian philosophy quite well in the closing verses of The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard: you are free to enter into contracts as you see fit; they are binding and fair if freely entered; individuals have the right to distribute and use their property as they see fit; others don't have the right to determine what is "fair" about how others use their property. He summed up all this in three sentences at the end of a parable with a lot less words and more eloquence than I can.

Don’t try to say that they are going to where the wealth is, if that were the case, they’d be migrating to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait. Some of the richest countries in the world. Countries dominated by Islamic Culture. The wealth of Modern Western Civilization is a result of the people being allowed the liberty and freedom that embracing Christianity brought. If they were fleeing to where the wealth was, and wanted to continue to embrace the superiority of Islamic culture, they would be fleeing to the massively wealthy Middle East Countries that are closer than the Christian nations they seek. Clearly they are risking their lives to flee Islamic Culture and the violence and tyranny inherent in that culture.

The mass flight of people from the culture of Islam to Western culture rooted in Christianity, lays to waste the idea that all cultures are basically equal. Otherwise they would be fleeing to China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, or Kuwait. Once we accept that all cultures are not equal, then the idea of defending a culture that provides more liberty, freedom, wealth, and fat not starving poor people, can be once again accepted. If you believe that America is not a “Christian Nation” and our liberty and freedom are not based in the application of Biblical principles, then you probably believe I’m a Big Fat Black Lesbian who Hates Hunting. The people of Islamic Nations are voting with their feet, their votes shout loud and clear that Islam as a culture is inferior to the nominally Christian culture of the West.

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

America’s Not a Christian Nation - and I'm a Fat Black Lesbian Who Hates Hunting

By Tom Rhodes, 9/15/2015 - Originally Published April 12,2009

"America’s Not a Christian Nation - and I'm a Fat Black Lesbian Who Hates Hunting" well at least that's what Doug Giles says. It's the title of his latest commentary article at TownHall.com. The basic premise is that the USA was founded on and is a Christian nation. He's right. Some of my Libertarian brethren hate it, but this nation was founded and created based on Christian principals.

As Doug says "Christianity wasn't the state’s declared religion, but our framers clearly stated that Christ and Moses were where this bad boy came from."

John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence, a judge, diplomat, signer of the Bill of Rights, and second President of the United States.

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. ...
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity."

Doug goes on quote Sam Adams, John Quincy Adams, and a bunch of other DWGs (Dead White Guys). You best go check out Wall Builders and see what the founding fathers said about liberty, our government and Christianity.

Libertarian thought and philosophy is a direct result of the tenents of Christianity. Man is created in Gods Image, Man is given free will, God gave man a few rules to live by. Virtually all of them were about honoring him or respecting the rights of other individuals. Taken as a whole the Bible is probably the most libertarian and freedom loving book ever created.

That said the Libertarian party is not only open to but a home for atheists, Jews, Muslims, pagans, and all the other religions. Most people from other religions feel at home in the Libertarian party. Again this is a good thing, as the Libertarian party is a political organization not a religion, based on the solid principal that a person is sovereign over him/herself not the government. The basic and most fundamental tenents of libertarianism is voluntary interactions between sovereign people, and opposition to using force against others. If you've read the Gospels and teaching of Paul you'd find that is one of the underlying themes of the new testament.

OK, look at the 10 commandments; the first five are moral rules for how you relate with God, following them will make you happier, and according to a lot of scientific study live longer, but if you don't believe in God then they are meaningless. The second five are legal rules for how to treat one another.

They are: Don't murder, Don't commit adultery, don't steal, Don't bear false witness against your neighbor, and don't covet your neighbor’s stuff. Coveting your neighbors stuff covers acts like fraud, insider trading, dishonestly swindling your neighbor from his property, basically acting like a used car salesman turned investment banker.

What sound Libertarian wouldn't agree that those are good rules, and sound reasons to base law on. Jesus boiled them down to the Golden rule, and freed us from the Mosaic law. So as far as Christ is concerned your free do whatever you please and enjoy your life so long as you honor god, and treat your neighbor as you would your self.

Christ sums up most of libertarian philosophy quite well in the closing verses of The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard: you are free to enter into contracts as you see fit; they are binding and fair if freely entered; sovereign individuals have the right to distribute and use their property as they see fit; others don't have the right to determine what is "fair" about how others use their property. He sums up all this in three sentences at the end of a parable with a lot less words and more eloquence than I can.

He also calls on us to take care of the down trodden and orphans. He doesn't call on the government to do so. We the people of this country do that, and do it better than the government. As private citizens we followed Christ's principals even if we didn't claim them as His, after the Tidal Wave a few years ago, private citizens sent more aid than most government's of the world. After Katrina private citizens went and helped and built and did more than the government, only stopped by FEMA and the like. It was the churches of this country, and christian business like Walmart, that dropped what they were doing and went to help, not the Libertarian party, not the government, but people and their churches. Christian churches, how many mosque's sent people, supplies, money to New Orleans to help those they didn't know? Answer: zero. The christian people of the USA following the Golden Rule do a far better job of taking care of the poor then the government ever has.

You may try and make excuses base on psudo-psycho-social-bullshit and the like, but the ideas that all men are equal (made in God's image), that we are to be free and sovereign are clearly biblical. You don't have to believe in the Christian God, or any god, but not recognizing that liberty and freedom and the basic tenents of the Libertarian party are rooted in Christianity is just lying to yourself.

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

What Rule of Law?

Tom Rhodes, 9/8/2015

Today we are seeing the ruling elite imprison those who don’t follow there dictates regardless of the law. In fact obeying the law, if our ruling masters don’t like the law, can and will land you in prison indefinitely. Kim Davis sits in jail for following the law. Even some libertarians say she should be in jail for not following the law. The question is what law is she violating? The fact is the contempt of court finding, but that finding is based on the court enforcing the will of ruling elites without any law to support the ruling.

The court is saying, “You will do as we dictate regardless of the law.” Kim Davis chose to obey Kentucky’s marriage law and state Constitution which requires marriage be between two people of different sexes. The SCOTUS cannot make law, that is the exclusive authority of the Legislature. Read the constitution if you don’t believe me. The SCOTUS can declare a law null and void because it violates the constitution, but it has no power or authority to dictate laws. It’s called separation of powers.

Here’s the real problem. Others whom the ruling elite favor, can refuse to enforce laws and dictates of federal courts at will and suffer no consequences, while those who enforce laws the ruling oligarchy wish didn’t exist are jailed. Here are some recent examples:

  • Chief Cathy Lanier, of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, is refusing to issue concealed weapons permits to people unless they can arbitrarily show a “good reason,” although the law is clear that there is no requirement to do so. Despite a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in May stopping her from denying the permits. Refusing a federal judge is not landing Cathy Lanier in jail for contempt.

  • Lesbian Texas judge, Tonya Parker, in 2012, refused to issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples until same-sex marriage was legalized. Unlike Kim Davis, she was clearly violating the law, not only wasn’t she jailed for violating the law, she wasn’t even disciplined.

  • County sheriffs throughout California are similarly denying concealed weapons permits to applicants, despite last November’s Ninth Circuit ruling stating the the sheriffs were violating the law. People have died, unable to obtain permits to legally carry a weapon for self-defense, yet none of those sheriffs have been sent to jail.

  • In 2004 in clear violation of California State Law San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered clerks to issue same-sex marriage licenses in 2004. Newsom was never sent to jail.

  • In 2007 Newsom made San Francisco a sanctuary city, in clear violation of federal law. Nothing happened to him. The city’s sanctuary status resulted in the death of Kate Steinle in July, who was shot by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times and had seven felony convictions.

    Davis is in violation of no law, and is attempting to enforce Kentucky law. The constitution does not grant the federal government the right to regulate marriage, that is clearly within the jurisdiction of the states. The sad fact is Kim Davis was singled out and punished disproportionately compared to other public officials who didn’t comply with other controversial laws.

    If we were a country ruled by law, not dictates of those in power, then Cathy Lanier, Tonya Parker, Gavin Newsom, and multiple California sheriffs would be in jail alongside Kim Davis. Obviously if your position is not to enforce laws leftists don’t like, or violate laws leftists don’t like, then there are no consequences, but not do as leftists dictate, regardless of the law and you will be imprisoned. That is not rule of law, but rule by the elite’s whims, and no different than any other feudal system.

    The problem is that the it is the U.S. Supreme Court who violated the Constitution by legislating, a power explicitly restricted to only Congress. Congress had overwhelmingly approved a law that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman, all the SCOTUS can do is declare that law unconstitutional, it cannot create offsetting legislation.

    In the state of Kentucky, it’s constitution is unambiguous saying, “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.” There is no provision in the US Constitution or laws that grant the U.S. Supreme Court the authority to overturn the Constitution of any state.

    Clearly there is no law that Kim Davis is in violation. She did defy a court order, but that court order has no basis in law and is therefore illegal. A court can’t order an elected official to murder a citizen, or otherwise violate the law. Such orders are invalid. A court order in direct conflict with the state of Kentucky’s Constitution is by default invalid. Obviously the Rule of Law is DEAD in the USA, and we are now ruled by the dictates of the elite. More of a Neo-Feudal society than a republic. The elected representatives of Kentucky have made the matter clear with 75% declaring that in Kentucky marriage is the legal union of one man and one woman. America used to be distinct among the countries in that it was a nation under the rule of law, not a nation under the rule of men. There’s a big difference.

    Sarah Warbelow, the legal direction of Human Rights Campaign, the USA’s largest LBGT activist lobby has said, “This situation absolutely didn’t have to happen, if only Kim Davis followed the law.” Exactly what law can she or anybody else cite that Kim Davis isn’t following?

    She can site the SCOTUS ruling but the SCOTUS does not have the power to create law, the U.S. Constitution is unambiguously clear about lawmaking: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” That means SCOTUS cannot make law, PERIOD! So any law dictated by the SCOTUS is null and void and not a law.

    We used to be a nation ruled by law, now we are a nation rule by some ruling oligarchy, who can pick and choose who must follow the law and who can do whatever they want without being held accountable. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck, it’s a safe bet it is a duck. For the USA if it acts like a feudal oligarchy, sounds like a feudal oligarchy, and looks like a feudal oligarchy, then it’s a safe bet that the USA is now a feudal oligarchy, not a republic based on the rule of law.
  • Wednesday, August 12, 2015

    Tolerance Of Totalitarianism Is Not A Virtue, It Is Surrender

    By Tom Rhodes, 8/12/2015

    Fear of being called, racist, sexist, homophobic, islamaphobic, or whatever ugly term progressives use to disqualify those who dare utter ideas they disapprove, has silenced many in America. Progressives also routinely dehumanize any who don’t follow their beliefs. They are effectively eliminating freedom of speech. These Social Justice Warriors (SJW’s) have created and used effective tactics to silence those who don’t accept their ideas. This tactic has proved effective. Time to go on the offensive and use their tactic against them. This is proving effective in many social media discussions.

    First let’s identify the issue, I’ll use some stuff Dr. Walter Williams wrote in a recent article on “micro-aggression,” that correctly identifies and labels the actions of SJW’s

    From the Nazis to the Stalinists, tyrants have always started out supporting free speech, and why is easy to understand. Speech is vital for the realization of their goals of command, control and confiscation. Free speech is a basic tool for indoctrination, propagandizing, proselytization. Once the leftists gain control, as they have at many universities, free speech becomes a liability and must be suppressed. This is increasingly the case on university campuses.
    Western values of liberty are under ruthless attack by the academic elite on college campuses across America. These people want to replace personal liberty with government control; they want to replace equality before the law with entitlement. As such, they pose a far greater threat to our way of life than any terrorist organization or rogue nation. Leftist ideas are a cancer on our society. Ironically, we not only are timid in response, but also nourish those ideas with our tax dollars and charitable donations."
    ~ Dr. Walter Williams

    Compromise, rationality, and working with SJW’s doesn’t work. Facts and figures are useless, they dismiss any data that doesn’t support their position, lie, and attack the person who brings it up with dehumanizing labels. These evil bastards go so far as to destroy any who don’t toe the progressive line. Look at Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, who in 2014 forced to resign. Although none of his actions at the company were ever anti-gay, and he never talked about his personal beliefs at Mozilla. The fact that years earlier he donated money to a political cause to protect marriage, he was forced to resign.

    When asked if his beliefs about marriage should constitute a firing offense the way racism or sexism does, Eich argued that these religious beliefs — and beliefs popular as of 2008 — should not be used as a basis for dismissal. "I don't believe that's true, on the basis of what's permissible to support or vote on in 2008," he told CNET. "It's still permissible. Beliefs that are protected, that include political and religious speech, are generally not something that can be held against even a CEO. I understand there are people who disagree with me on this one."

    SJW’s are tyrannical thought police, seek to punish and crush any who dare not believe what they dictate. Progressive SJW professors, physically attack students who express ideas they don’t like, and then claim to be victim because those ideas hurt their psyche.

    SJW’s have in essence created the new battle lines and rules. Time to use their tactics against them. They should be given no quarter and crushed as ruthlessly as they have tried to crush others. Refer to them a the totalitarian thought police, fascist nazi’s etc. whenever and wherever they try to silence ideas they don’t like. Don’t try rational discourse, it won’t work. Attack. They are totalitarian, anti-freedom hate mongers. Taking the game to them is proving to work where the people have the guts to stand up to them. Look up Gamergate and Rabid Puppies. SJW’s are a cancer that must be eliminated.

    For years the Hugo Awards (Science Fiction writing award) have been silenced by SJW’s. They disqualified any writer whose ideas aren’t politically correct, saying “That there is no place in science fiction for anyone writing X.” X being racist, sexist, etc. The popularity of Science Fiction books has been dropping for the past couple decades. The great works of Heinlein, Tolkien, Howard, Lewis, Lovecraft, would not get past most Politically Correct editors today and even get published. There is a de facto exclusion from the sci-fi community of noted authors: David Drake, David Weber, L.E Modesitt Jr, Kevn J. Anderson, Eric Flint. Even Orson Scott Card — the creator of the world-famous Ender’s Game, which was recently adapted into a successful movie. Despite his phenomenal success, Scott Card has been ostracized by sci-fi’s inner circle thanks to his opposition to gay marriage.

    SJW’s changed the Hugo awards to choosing based on the beliefs of the author not the quality of the work. A rebellion started with the Hugo Awards, and playing by the rules a group of people managed to nominate a slate of works that are not politically correct, using the tactics of SJW’s. The results were entire categories of Hugo awards are not going to go to the politically correct. Read about it here.

    The article notes, “It seems that fandoms and online communities everywhere are waking up to the new menace of political intolerance, authoritarianism, ostracism and so-called ‘social justice.’ … Ordinary people are utterly fed up with the dominance of cliquish culture warriors whose bizarre opinions do not reflect those of the majority. They are fed up with being told what to do, what to believe, and whom to exclude. Wherever and whoever they may be, crusaders for political and social conformity are in the midst of a storm. And that storm is only just beginning.”

    The Geeks, Comic Book Fans, Gamers, are showing the way to defeat SJW’s. Never accept their assertions, attack and demonize SJW’s for the totalitarian thought police that they are. This will work in politics as well. Trump is showing the tactic works. Unlike the MSM, on the internet and in today’s world, we have access to the same shaming, social exclusion, finger waging, to create a backlash against the authoritarian left.

    Quit arguing with the totalitarian thought police, call them out for being anti-liberty, label them as the totalitarian elitists they are. Be defiant, bold, and challenging for their clear hatred of liberty. They are totalitarian. SJW’s be they feminists, gay rights activists, or race mongers don’t care about tolerance, diversity, or inclusion, those are just tools to get what they want, power. Trying to coexist with them, or tolerate their presence is not going to work, they are totalitarians. Tolerance of totalitarianism is not a virtue, it is surrender.

    Friday, August 7, 2015

    Trump Hit a Home Run

    By Tom Rhodes, 8/7/2015

    Damn It! Trump is the quintessential crony capitalist, and I was hoping he screw up so bad in the first GOP debate he’d be gone. Instead he hit a home run and the SJW press doesn’t know how to react. Trump expressed the unstated opinion of the great majority of Americans. When the liberal progressive feminist tried to label Trump sexist, misogynist, or whatever other label they seek to use to discredit, disqualify, or distract those who don’t follow the feminist SJW doctrine, instead of folding and humbly apologizing for his fopaux he owned it. His reply hit it right out of the park. Here’s the exchange between Fox News Channel’s, Megyn Kelly, and GOP Candidate Donald Trump.

    KELLY: Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don't use a politician's filter. However that is not without its downsides, in particular when it comes to women. You've called women you don't like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals. Your twitter account--

    TRUMP: Only Rosie O'Donnell.

    KELLY: For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell.

    TRUMP: I'm sure it was.

    KELLY: Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women's looks. You once told a contesttent that it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees.

    Does that sound like the temperament of a man we should elect as president?

    And how do you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who is likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?

    TRUMP: The big problem this country has is being politically correct. I've been challenged by so many people and I don't frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn't have time either. This country is in big trouble. We don't win anymore. We lose to China, we lose to Mexico both in trade and at the border. We lose to everybody. Frankly what I say and oftentiTmes it's fun, it’s kidding, we have a good time. What I say is what I say. And honestly, Megyn if you don't like it, I'm sorry. I've been very nice to you although I could probably not be based on the way you have treated me, but I wouldn't do that. But you know what? We, we need strength, we need energy, we need quickness and we need brain in this country to turn it around. That I can tell you right now.

    Not even any of the Libertarian Candidates are currently willing to stand up to feminist SJWs. Trump standing up to the feminist SJW, Megyn Kelly, in clear and certain terms, will resonate with a huge part of the American people and although the press will pillory him for his response the average joe is cheering. Every SJW (that’s Social Justice Whiner), and self-appointed thought cop is part of the problem. Trumps example is fantastic. It’s time to quit taking PC crap and make sure every time the some SJW tries to play thought cop, it gets crammed right down their throat.

    Trump boldly declaring that "The big problem this country has is being politically correct," targets the biggest problem we have that gets in the way of discussing any of the actual issues that matter honestly. It was good to seek Kelly have enough balls to ask a tough feminist question, better yet it was good to see a candidate, unapologetically stand up to the feminist PC thought cops trying discredit, disqualify, and distract based on irrelevant garbage and hurt feelings. This Orwellian crap of not being able to state an observable truth, if that fact isn’t politically correct, has got to end. Instead of Trump looking like the buffoon the press and political establishment want us to think, he’s looking like a serious person, who want to address serious problems, and isn’t willing to take PC bullshit get in the way of dealing with serious issues.

    As a libertarian, many of Trumps positions bother me. As a Libertarian, I plan on voting for the LP nominee, not the GOP or Democrat regardless of who they choose to run. I thought the SJWs would beat Trump down and he’d soon be gone by the end of the summer. Instead he again voiced and identified the heart of an issue that the masses recognize and the ruling elite don’t want to discuss. He keeps doing this and could end up a serious candidate. Washington has created an US vs THEM problem. The ruling elite vs. the masses. Most people today see the government as a burden, trying to control us and ignoring the problems of the people. Trumps actions and words are firmly putting him in the camp of the people not the ruling elite.

    This is fun to watch, but before the end of the year, I expect the GOP and the Democrats to pull out some sneaky crap to make Trump go away. They cannot afford to have to deal with real issues that Trump is bringing to the forefront. Issues that both parties don’t want the people talking about or worse yet, being forced to make statements about. Look at what they did to Ron Paul, who was an insider and accepted member of the ruling elite; Trump as a true outsider is doomed.

    Tuesday, August 4, 2015

    Democrats Can't Tell Themselves Apart from Socialists

    by Tom Rhodes, 8/4/2015

    Democrat Party chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was asked a simple direct question. What’s the difference between the Democrat and Socialist Parties? She changed the subject. Went so far as to tell the interviewer what she thought the question should be. This is such a simple strait forward question of basic political philosophy it should be easy for any Democrat to answer. When the chairman of the Democrat Party can’t answer it we should all have questions.

    The answer to the question “What’s the difference between Democrats and Socialists?” was answered 60 years ago by famous author and politician Upton Sinclair. After switching from the Socialist to Democrat party and asked about why he replied, "The American people will take socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it... Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000." He showed in 1951 that if you push socialist ideas and call yourself a Democrat, you can win Democrat votes. Democrats believe in socialism, but just don’t want to be called socialists.

    Proof can be heard from current Democrat and President B.H.Obama’s own words:

  • “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times.”

  • “Generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.”

  • “If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

  • “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

  • “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

  • “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.”

  • “I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution…”

  • “…We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”

  • “Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation.”

  • “The great task before our founders was putting into practice the ideal that government could simultaneously serve liberty and advance the common good. and Government, he believed, had an important role to play in advancing our common prosperity.”

  • “Political discussions, the kind at Occidental had once seemed so intense and purposeful, came to take on the flavor of the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union”

    And let’s not forget:

  • “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

    The truth Democrat Party chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, couldn’t utter was there is no difference between Democrats and Socialists.
  • Monday, August 3, 2015

    Befuddling Question About Institutional Racism

    By Tom Rhodes, 8/3/2015

    Politically Incorrect observation/question that progressives won’t respond to honestly. In fact merely asking or noting the fact is enough to label you as racist.

    I’m befuddled on “institutional racism?” Our justice system is being labeled as “Institutionally racist” because one-third of the men in prison are black, despite the fact that blacks are only one-eighth of the population. If that is true then does the fact that more than a third (37%) of all aborted babies are black, despite the fact that blacks are only one-eighth of the population, prove that abortion is “institutionally racist.” The preponderance of Planned Parenthood offices being in predominantly poor black neighborhoods, coupled with the clearly expressed views of Planned Parenthood’s founder M. Sanger, would lead any reasonable person to conclude that Planned Parenthood is racist, and it’s goal is to eliminate black babies.

    Why do progressives who support Planned Parenthood want to kill black babies?