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

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Why are So Many Libertarians Pro-Murder?

By Tom Rhodes, 7/30/2015

My dictionary defines murder as: killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance. That means by definition to purposefully and with forethought, to kill a human being who has committed no act of aggression against another, is murder.

The idea that if a human being is less developed than other human she may be killed just because her mere existence is unwanted by her mother is quite simply an abominable immoral murder. Whether it’s legal or called “abortion” is irrelevant, it is murder. If you support the right of women to murder innocent people who have instigated no act of aggression against anybody, yet condemn men who murder innocent marines working in recruiting stations, you are a hypocrite and of low moral character.

Planned Parenthood just got caught selling body parts from innocent murdered babies. “The grisly business of the abortion monolith and its blithe nonchalance in the face of the gruesome reality have been Planned Parenthood’s stock-and-trade since the time of its notorious founder, Margaret Sanger.”

I have read and paraphrased some valid questions from a lot of different sources that the pro-innocent-baby-murder crowd don’t want to answer:

  • If the unborn babies are not human, then why is there a market for their body parts for human scientific research?
  • If the “POC” (Product of Conception) is just a “blob of tissue” why would anyone want the heart or lungs?
  • Other than age (stage of development), why is a mere “blob of tissue” with human DNA, human heart, and human lungs, not a human?
  • If you it’s OK to sell human parts of the very young people for profit, why not sell older more developed body parts like maybe your working spare kidney?
  • Who’s to say an assisted-care facility shouldn’t sell parts from deceased patients for profit?
  • Who’s to say an assisted-care facility shouldn’t accelerate their patients death to facilitate organ harvest for profit?
  • How is murdering the poor and homeless to harvest their organs any more egregious?

    Another lexicon for consideration; the word fetus has Latin roots, it comes from the word foedus, which means unborn baby. A fetus by definition is simply an unborn baby, if that fetus has human DNA it is a human baby at an early stage of life. It is not dead, it is not something other than human, it is as the Latin root word definitions clearly states, a baby. Calling the baby a fetus in an attempt to dehumanize the baby that a mother murders, doesn’t change the cold hard facts, abortion is murder of an person who has committed no crime nor any act of aggression against anybody. Being legal doesn’t make it any less murder.

    “Abortion is a crime that kills not only the child but the consciences of all involved.” ~ Mother Teresa


    It is not scientifically arguable that abortion is not killing a human. The only argument is at what stage of human development do we grant that human the right to life. If society can arbitrarily choose to make the right to life based on age (stage of development), then the right to life is not a right, but a privilege. A privilege granted only to those whom others have deemed worthy of existence. If life is a mere privilege, how can anything else be a right?

    How can a rational person take the official Libertarian position seriously? The official Libertarian position on murdering a member of your baby is “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.” Using that logic it should be up to each person to decide if murdering some family member who is inconvenient or unwanted and the government should not create any laws against it, leaving it up to the family embers conscientious consideration. Using that logic the LP Platform supports Honor Killing of family members.

    Why doesn’t the LP Platform read: “Recognizing that Avunculicide, Familicide, Feticide (or foeticide), Filicide, Fratricide, Geronticide, Honour killing, Infanticide, Mariticide, Matricide, Neonaticide, Nepoticide, Parricide, Patricide, Prolicide, Senicide, Sororicide, and Uxoricide, are sensitive issues and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”???

    The reason is clear, the first and primary right every person has, that was the foundation and reason we created our government and the fundamentally the root of everything we think of as a right is the right to life. Abortion is the idea that a mother knows better than her unborn baby whether that baby is worthy of existing. That her superior knowledge of how that baby existing will affect her life and the probably quality of that baby’s life is enough to determine if that baby has the right to life. Once you accept abortion, you accept the idea that those with power and authority have the right to determine if those without power and authority can even exist. If you accept that a person with power and authority can murder those under her authority without recourse, how can you logically accept any limits on that power and authority. Clearly not a libertarian idea. Why do so many libertarians accept the idea that those with legal power and authority have the right to control other’s lives, even if that other is allowed to live that life?
  • Tuesday, July 14, 2015

    US Military Surrenders in LBGT Culture War

    By Tom Rhodes, 7/14/2015

    Monday the Pentagon announced defeat and total surrender in the LBGT culture war. It will allow transgender members of the military to serve openly starting next year. At first I was thinking WTF. When Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said he had directed the armed forces to devise new rules over the next six months that would allow transgender troops to serve, I thought OMG the entire military has gone batshit crazy.

    Then it became clear to me, what a sneaky way to fix the problem on not enough women in the Seals, Marines, Army Rangers, etc. All they have to do to fix that problem is get enough manly men to claim to be women. If Bruce Jenner can be Katlin and we must now refer to him as a woman then so can any Navy Seal. Presto-change-o the not enough women in certain parts of the military is fixed. You can have a big strapping woman who can carry a 80 pound ruck with a log on her shoulder after 20 hours of hard labor during Hell Week, just as effectively as any man. Just because “Samantha” (formerly Sam Smith) has balls, a schlong, and no tits, being 6’2” tall, weighing 200 pounds, and bench pressing 300 pounds, and is just a girl who thinks a 10K run is a warm up, that doesn’t make her any less a woman.

    Absolutely brilliant on the part of Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter. If we must accept men who claim to be women as women, then the physical requirements of certain military units do not have to be compromised to accommodate anybody, just let some men claim to be women, hell just classify 40% the current men in the seals as women, they don’t even have to know about it and the problem is solved. Sargent Alvin York now has the box next to Female under Sex: checked, and he’s labeled like the old joke goes, “A Lesbian Woman Trapped in a Man’s Body.” If the actual biology of a person doesn’t define their sex, rather how they, (or the powers that be) “feel” about their sex determines their legal sex, then the problem of enough women passing PT can be made to disappear with paperwork instead of lowering standards.

    It looks like not all of the unintended consequences to the freakshow that is the current LBGT culture war will not be bad for the military. Those military types are sneaky bastards.

    Friday, July 10, 2015

    Playing the Trump Card is Entertaining

    by Tom Rhodes, 7/10/2015

    The silly season of presidential politics is heating up. For political junkies this is entertainment like we haven’t seen in decades. The early leader in GOP polls almost never wins the GOP nomination. Trump right now is destroying the GOP competition, and he’s a definite RINO. The reason he’s ahead is he listened to the people on a very important issue. The ruling oligarchy of Republicans and Democrats, doesn’t want to touch immigration and definitely doesn’t want to do what 2/3rds of America wants; close the border. This may be the single most important issue to the American people that the oligarchs don’t want us to talk about much less do anything about. The establishment ruling elite claim Americans want a path to citizenship for criminal foreign nationals, but the polls say otherwise.

    Americans know there are record numbers of people without jobs, they know more criminal foreign nationals in the country depresses labor markets keeping their wages down. They know supply and demand laws work, so if there are a lot more people available to do unskilled or low skilled labor then the wages for that labor will be lower, and will depress the entire labor market. They aren’t anti-immigrant, they are anti-illegal immigrants who cross our border through criminal means. They know that criminal foreign nationals, who don’t respect our immigration laws, probably won’t respect our other laws, much less our respect our traditions and culture. There are not jobs Americans won’t do, there are jobs Americans won’t do if they pay less than they can receive for sitting on their ass.

    Take home pay for a person working minimum wage is $975 per month after taxes. Because employers are now forced to purchase health insurance for everybody working full time, an employer can hire two people to work 29.9 hours per week cheaper than he can hire one person to work 40 hours per week. Because 59.8 hours of unskilled labor working part time is cheaper than 40 hours of unskilled labor full time, there are no minimum wage job is more than 29.9 hours per week. The reality is a business saves even more because payroll is simpler, accounting is simpler, no insurance paperwork, so the need for a admin person to do all the paperwork is not needed. Some of the unintended consequences of Obamacare and US labor laws.

    This means that in reality if your are following the law, a minimum wage worker takes home $850 per month or less. Combine all the benefits available and welfare provides significantly more than $850/month. So American workers are not willing to take jobs that pay less than they receive for not working. Criminal foreign nationals are willing to live 10 people to a crappy 2 room apartment, work for cash under the table, and because they are criminals willing to work under conditions that are not legal. Why would a business pay more for unskilled labor, when even if caught the penalties are less than the amount they save from having to compete for legal labor.

    It’s actually worse than that. The fact is at $100 per day for a 10hr day for a day laborer, and you don’t hire the same day laborer more than 5 days, and there are no taxes, just a day labor expense. Give the guy a $100 bill at the end of the day and you’re done, don’t even need to file a 1099, huge amounts of admin paperwork avoided. If they change their name and give you a different SSN you can do that week after week. So an illegal day laborer can take home $2000 per month, the business owner not break any law and it’s cheaper than the business hiring a full time employee and working him 50 hours at minimum wage paying time-and-a-half for OT, the taxes, insurance, and all the other stuff the law requires.

    Trump knows this, he’s hired criminal foreign nationals in his past for just that reason. He knows the people are fed up with having to compete with criminals for jobs. The GOP won’t do anything because their donors benefit from cheap criminal labor and low penalties if caught. The Democrats won’t do anything because criminal foreign nationals in exchange for welfare will illegally vote, and vote Democrat, so that they can keep gaming the system. They are criminals, if ignoring immigrations laws is not an issue, so is ignoring voter laws and welfare laws, housing laws, and labor laws.

    Trump boldly, unapologetically, directly, and fearlessly, has stood up and said, “Here is where I stand, like it and vote for me, don’t like it don’t vote for me, but this is my stand and what I’ll do.” No political weasel words, but a solid position that just happens to be in agreement with 2/3’s the population. This scares the shit out of the Republicans and Democrats, who want some issues to be ignored so that they can continue to kick the can and not actually do something about the mass invasion of criminal foreign nationals. Americans are finding a man willing to stand on principle refreshing and more trustworthy. Even if they don’t agree with all his positions, many feel that a man with bold, honest, unapologetic, political positions, is worth voting for. I’m pretty sure the bad rug he wears on his head will cost him the election. Good hair wins the female vote, that’s the big reason McCain lost to Obama. Don’t believe me? Look at the hair/looks of presidents since TV got big. Hair and looks won every time.

    If Trump can stay on message, and force the others to address the invasion of criminal foreign nationals, and make the other candidates look like weasely political hacks and himself look like a principled man of action, he can win the GOP nomination. Because Trump speaks with a passion, lucidity and a frankness that none of the establishment politicians of the GOP dare articulate, on a subject they do not want there to be real public debate, the Republican mega-donors are scared he might get into the debates. To add to the fat-cats fears, Trump has the money to counter their money. Trump in the debates will be bad for established statist candidates and their sponsors. He will bring issues to the table they don’t want the public addressing, this will be bad for them.

    The Democrats are stupid and blind, they believe their own lies and think the public accept the politically correct position, and want to grant amnesty to criminal foreign nationals. So they are trying to group all Republicans as having Trump’s views. This will be a big mistake, as they will be forced to take a vocal stand on immigration. Because a huge part of the population treats immigration as a jobs issue, with record number of people without jobs, and a huge number blaming the lack of jobs on a glut of criminal foreign nationals willing to work for less than legal wages, the Democrat position is the wrong side of the voters’ position. Trump having Democrat positions on other topics, and a clear, firm, bold stance on immigration means he’ll get a large number of democrat votes other GOP members can’t and could win the election.

    Although I don’t like is statist positions on a huge number of issues, having a person who know what it takes to succeed and get things done, having learned from both his failures (bankruptcy) and success, now a Billionaire again, might not be bad. He’s clearly not the establishment candidate. It will be fun to watch how the establishment ruling elite destroy him. He will not be allowed to win any more than Ron Paul was allowed to win. The books will be cooked, the media bought off, and lies will be told. But the ruling elite are not going to let him get far.

    You got to like a guy, who tells Univision you’re in breach of our contract, you don’t honor our contract and don’t broadcast the Miss USA pageant as agreed, and I’ll sue you for $500Million. The contract doesn’t have a provision to exit if you don’t like what the other guy says. Support for the Rule of Law, a rarity in politics today. Trump is doubling down, not retracting his opinion, and holding Univision to the terms of their Contract. A positive principled position in support of the rule of law, something a libertarian can appreciate. I can’t vote for Trump based on his positions on healthcare, abortion, guns, and, his financial support for Democrats. But I am going to enjoy the chaos he will bring to the elections.

    Thursday, July 9, 2015

    USA Following the Path of Mexico and Greece

    By Tom Rhodes, 7/9/2015

    Fundamentally we should ask ourselves, why the people of oil and material rich Mexico, abandon their homeland, break international law, and migrate to the USA? We should also ask why the people of Greece voted to violate international law and renege on the debt they choose procure? Why did the USA prosper while other countries with equal resources stagnate or decay? The fundamental reason the USA prospered is the same fundamental reason it now wanes. The bedrock principle that was established and regarded as sacred, a principle that is becoming more and more meaningless in the USA, is “The Rule of Law.”

    Mexico is a naturally rich country; blessed with oil, precious minerals, fertile soils, long coastlines and warm weather. Hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens vote with their feet, reject their homeland, break the law, and illegally come to the USA. The reason is because Mexico is a mess. The police expect bribes, property rights are only for the rich and well connected, and if you can’t afford to pay the kickbacks, the government doesn’t work. The sad fact is the people of Mexico leave their homeland and come to the USA, while the people of the USA don’t migrate to Mexico is because, in Mexico, the people cannot expect clean water, adequate public safety, reliable power, nor upward mobility. Those things don’t exist in Mexico because neither the government nor the culture have a respect nor expectation of the “Rule of Law.”

    Like Mexico, Greece has institutionalized corruption. There is a distinct lack of transparency and creeping neglect of existing laws. It doesn’t matter how many euros the EU loans Greece. If Greeks continue to dodge taxes, see corruption as a business model, the EU loans are throwing good money after bad. The Greeks are now in a position that they can never repay, ever! Privation for generations is the only way they can repay the EU. The Germans are demanding just that, repayment at the expense of the standard of living for an entire nation. The Germans expect generations of Greeks to work to repay their corrupt government’s borrowing. Money borrowed to redistribute to the Greeks and pad fat pensions. As long as the rule of law is not the rule of Greece it will continue to be a disaster. In a country where drivers routinely flout traffic laws and throw trash out the window is also a country that cooks its books and lies to its creditors. All laws seem negotiable in Athens in a way not true of other nations.

    The fact is that our nation is in decline, No nation can expect to thrive if its government refuses to enforce its own laws. When an entire city, can say, “Screw the law”, and declare that their city is a "sanctuary" where the Federal Law will be ignored, such as San Francisco’s defiance of immigration laws, then why can’t cities in Utah or Alabama declare that gay marriage laws were null and void. If San Francisco can defy immigration laws, why can’t Tampa defy import laws and declare its port to be duty free, inspection free, and allow any car to be imported? Imagine ignoring federal laws, and buying a car like the Chevy Beat that has a list price of $6634, gets over 60mpg, but not allowed in the US. Maybe ignoring federal laws is not such a bad idea.

    The idea that foreign nationals in the USA without proper visas, green cards, etc. are not criminals, and that the INS should only focus on known foreign nationals who are also known felons would be like telling the police to not stop people without license plates unless they are in an accident or speeding. Should the IRS be told not to look for tax cheats unless they have been previously convicted of being a tax cheat?

    Think about it, federal government employees owe more than $3 billion in federal back taxes, why should non-government employed tax payers be treated any differently. The fact is for the average person, getting away without paying taxes is no longer considered morally wrong. Getting caught as a tax cheat is considered stupid, but not wrong. Our culture used to denigrate those who broke the law.

    The rule of law is a system in which the following four universal principles are upheld:

    1) The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law.

    2) The laws are clear, publicized, stable and just, are applied evenly, and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property.

    3) The process by which the laws are enacted, administered and enforced is accessible, fair and efficient.

    4) Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and are acceptable to the communities they serve.

    Members of Congress feel no compulsion to obey the law. District of Columbia police issued 2,912 parking tickets to cars owned by members of Congress in 1998. None were paid. The financially strapped District, which actively pursues and "boots" cars belonging to ordinary citizens, does not go after members of Congress. You don’t actually have to be a member of congress, if your rich and can afford a lawyer, you can make traffic tickets, including most DUI’s disappear, no points, no record, nada. Just pay “court costs” and it goes away. Not rich enough to afford a lawyer, lose your license, maybe your job, pay just as much. It is so bad that even traffic laws are not applied equally.

    Can you honestly say that the “Rule of Law” is sacred in the USA. Do the actions of our government, or the treatment of Hillary, Sharpton, and criminal foreign nationals (AKA illegal aliens) reflect any respect for the Rule of Law. Does the supreme court saying that despite what Obamacare law clearly says, the government can change it and enforce it however it wants reflect a respect for the “Rule of Law?”

    The USA is going the way of Greece and Mexico. The people of the USA have realized that they don’t have to obey the law. There is no shame in breaking the law, only for being stupid enough to get caught and too poor to buy your way out. If immigration law doesn’t apply to people coming into the USA across our southern border; if email retention laws don’t apply to Hillary; if tax laws and penalties don’t apply to Sharpton; if former Citrus County Sherriff Dean doesn’t have to get a permit to build on his property; then why should building codes, zoning laws, tax laws, or even traffic statutes apply to U.S. citizens?

    Saturday, July 4, 2015

    IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.


    IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
    For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
    For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
    He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
    He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


    The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

    Column 1
    Georgia:
    Button Gwinnett
    Lyman Hall
    George Walton

    Column 2
    North Carolina:
    William Hooper
    Joseph Hewes
    John Penn
    South Carolina:
    Edward Rutledge
    Thomas Heyward, Jr.
    Thomas Lynch, Jr.
    Arthur Middleton

    Column 3
    Massachusetts:
    John Hancock
    Maryland:
    Samuel Chase
    William Paca
    Thomas Stone
    Charles Carroll of Carrollton
    Virginia:
    George Wythe
    Richard Henry Lee
    Thomas Jefferson
    Benjamin Harrison
    Thomas Nelson, Jr.
    Francis Lightfoot Lee
    Carter Braxton

    Column 4
    Pennsylvania:
    Robert Morris
    Benjamin Rush
    Benjamin Franklin
    John Morton
    George Clymer
    James Smith
    George Taylor
    James Wilson
    George Ross
    Delaware:
    Caesar Rodney
    George Read
    Thomas McKean

    Column 5
    New York:
    William Floyd
    Philip Livingston
    Francis Lewis
    Lewis Morris
    New Jersey:
    Richard Stockton
    John Witherspoon
    Francis Hopkinson
    John Hart
    Abraham Clark

    Column 6
    New Hampshire:
    Josiah Bartlett
    William Whipple
    Massachusetts:
    Samuel Adams
    John Adams
    Robert Treat Paine
    Elbridge Gerry
    Rhode Island:
    Stephen Hopkins
    William Ellery
    Connecticut:
    Roger Sherman
    Samuel Huntington
    William Williams
    Oliver Wolcott
    New Hampshire:
    Matthew Thornton



    Wednesday, July 1, 2015

    Libertarians, Useful Idiots for the Left

    By Tom Rhodes, 7/1/2015

    Interesting blog were Sultan Knish explains why it is useless to attempt reason with leftists, and how Libertarians have become the Lefts useful idiots.

    ...

    The left will destroy the things you care about, because you care about them. It will destroy them because that gives them power over you. It will destroy them because these things stand in the way of its power. It will destroy them because a good deal of its militant activists need things to destroy and if they can't attack you, they'll turn on the left in a frenzy of ideologically incestuous purges.

    ...

    You can't accommodate the left on social issues. You can't accommodate it on fiscal issues. You can't do it. Period.

    The left exists to destroy you. It does not seek to co-exist with you. Its existence would lose all meaning. Any common ground will be used to temporarily achieve a goal before the useful idiots are kicked to the curb and denounced as bigots who are holding back progress.

    The purpose of power is power. The left is not seeking to achieve a set of policy goals before kicking back and having a beer. The policy goals are means of destroying societies, nations and peoples before taking over. If you allow it a policy goal, it will ram that goal down your throat. It will implement it as abusively as it can possibly can before it moves on to the next battle.

    It's not about gay marriage. It's not about cakes. It's about power.

    More fundamentally it's about the difference in human nature between the people who want to be left alone and those who want power over others. ...

    Being a moderate, or compromising, with the left is a losing proposition. In the case of Gay Marriage the Libertarians have been the Left's useful idiots, just as liberals have been in the past. The historical evidence for their behavior and the consequences is compelling. Read the entire blog and you'll understand how the Libertarians we been used by the Left and have given them more tools to gain power and take liberty from us all.

    Monday, June 29, 2015

    Why I’m Not a Progressive

    by Tom Rhodes, 6/29/2015

    Progressive is the nom de guerre for liberals, or leftists, or Democrats, etc. To be progressive is because you must be illogical, anti-science, totalitarian, and a hateful, racist, sexist bigot. The actions of today’s progressives are the very definition Orwellian.

    We can easily prove both the illogical and anti-science stance of progressives with one current example. Google Dr. Paul Church, a veteran urologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center for nearly 30 years. Well formerly at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Smoking is legal, but doctors discourage it because of the negative effects it has on health. Other behaviors carry significant risks to your health, narcotics, over eating, not exercising, etc. Doctors routinely admonish patients to stop engaging in risky lifestyles. My doctor routinely tells me to stop riding motorcycles. Dr. Church’s medical appointment was revoked because he dared tell patients of the health danger to certain behaviors and urge the hospital to stop promoting legal but scientifically proven risky behavior.

    In an Interview, Dr. Church said, “It is incredible to think they would be able to silence me and revoke my ability to be on the staff as a result of my raising valid health concerns over a risky lifestyle. This is almost a fascist effort at mind control.”

    Dr. Church rightly thinks that like other legal but risky behaviors, such as smoking, “The medical community should be cautioning people to avoid and abstain from a behavior that is high risk.”

    The scientific medical facts clearly support his position. As Dr. Church noted, “Although it has declined over the past few decades, two-thirds of all new HIV/AIDS infections in the U.S. are the result of men having sex with men. Fifty percent of ‘gay’ men will be infected with HIV by age 50. Those numbers are out there and they are staggering.” You can check for yourself with the CDC; their research supports his claims, and a litany of other health and mental problems exacerbated by choosing to engage in LBGT behavior. Because the logic and science of the real (not imagined) health and mental issues that accompany homosexuality do not meet the current progressive agenda, progressives actively work at silencing and marginalizing any who would dare use objective verifiable science and reason which doesn’t support their political agenda. They do the same with any logical and scientific position that rationally doesn’t support their agenda. To progressives truth is what they want it to be, not reality.

    It’s gotten so bad, progressives are calling to stop scientific research that doesn’t produce their desired results. In the April 2014 Popular Science, published an article titled “Stop Looking For 'Hardwired' Differences In Male And Female Brains”. Reasoning that because the results clearly show that men and women are different and that sex is not a social construct, and such research will reinforce gender stereotypes, we should not do the research. Think about it, because the science doesn’t confirm progressive’s irrational utopian desires for how the world ought to be, they actually want to suppress it. They actually say that the research is “not meaningful,” not because it is incorrect, and not because it is unscientific, but because there are statistical outliers. Statistical outliers don’t negate the norm. Using progressive reasoning because all dogs aren’t bigger than all domestic cats you can’t say on average dogs are bigger than cats. Using progressive reasoning because the length of a day varies a small amount based on gravitational forces, atmospheric conditions, seasonal rotational axis changes, and every day isn’t 86400.002 seconds long you can’t use a day for measurement in scientific research. (Happy Leap Second day, tonight there is a leap second so don’t forget to adjust your clock)

    The huge and obvious attacks against the First Amendment to the constitution, and the call for laws to make expression that doesn’t meet progressive politically correct criteria should be illegal and those who don’t adhere to the progressive PC dogma should be silenced and if necessary locked up. Today’s progressives believe that a few smart progressive people know better how every individual should live and should exercise power and authority to make the world a better place as they see it. Their basic political philosophy is oligarchical collectivist totalitarianism.

    The fact that they are emotionally driven not rationally it is also obvious that they believe those who don’t agree with them are evil. Hence the visceral hatred and personal attacks they make against anybody who doesn’t support their agenda. Those who don’t agree with the progressive PC agenda are immediately labeled with some hateful dehumanizing epitaph. Rather than defend their beliefs, and engage in rational debate on their positions, they use their belief that those who oppose them are evil, to dismiss without rationally examining, discussing, or evaluating positions. Progressive philosophy and discussion almost always comes down to “We’re right, and if you don’t accept that, you’re an evil poo-poo head.”

    Progressives are demonstratively racist. They firmly believe if you’re black you’re stupid and incompetent. To be “fair” they tyrannically force lower standards for blacks compared to other groups of people, in education, hiring, making loans, etc. They actually believe that blacks are too incompetent to get an ID to vote. Because they are emotionally driven, and don’t want to have hurt feelings, they couch what they are saying. They say to minorities because you were oppressed generations ago, we are doing these noble things, for your own good, to minorities. While actively promoting and rewarding behavior of minorities that keep them in poverty and dependent on government. To main tain control progressives denegrate any minority who dares improve themselves and leave their carefully controlled ghetto. Look at Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, and any number of black people who’ve made it out of urban poverty by improving themselves and the how progressives treat these minorities that don’t follow the progressive PC agenda. With regards to Jeff Foxworthy:

  • If you believe that certain words are acceptable for one group of people to use but forbidden by others; you might be a progressive.
  • If you believe academic requirements to get into universities should be lower for people of one skin color than another; you might be a racist progressive.
  • If you believe physical requirements for certain jobs should be lower for one group of people than for others; you might be a sexist progressive.
  • If you believe some standards of behavior should be acceptable for one group of people and not for others; you might be a progressive.

    I’m not a progressive because I’m not an illogical, anti-science, totalitarian, hateful, racist, sexist. Why are you?
  • Monday, June 15, 2015

    Why do weh have Marriage Laws?

    By Tom Rhodes, 6/15/2015

    The most basic, fundamental, and necessary laws are those laws created to protect the natural rights of people from harm. Laws against violent crime and property crime fall into this category. Without basic protection of natural rights, a society degenerates into despotism, the rule of the strong and violent over the weak and nonviolent, as we now see in Somalia. As is evident by the fact that every government in the world has them, laws offering basic protection of individuals from harm are essential.

    Virtually all other laws are statist in nature and are used to control behavior, and grant the state power over individuals. These include; Nanny State laws written to protect people from themselves, like drug laws; Morality Laws written to promote the personal morality of the law's author (usually religious); Donation laws, granting goods, services, or privilege to some but not all citizens; and outright Statist Laws intended to protect the government from the people or increase its power over the people.

    In the USA our constitution pretty much granted the government the power to create laws to protect the people from harm, but limited the government's ability to create statist laws. Our Bill of Rights is a list of specific prohibitions on the US government to create statist laws, and ensure the rule of law. For most of the history of Western civilization the state did not grant permission to marry (a license). This was because a marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents' agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity. For the first 1600 years of Christianity, to be married all people had to do was claim they exchanged marital vows, the church and government accepted the word of those people. The mere entries, of the names of the married, into the cover of a family bible were legal documentation of marriage.

    Around the 16th Century Europeans started to require legal requirements in an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match (read Romeo and Juliet). In the USA, even as simple colonies, although marriages were officially required to be registered, until about the time of the civil war state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. It wasn't until the end of the 1800's that the USA started to nullify common-law marriages, trying to control who could and couldn't marry. This was specifically racist in nature punishing interracial marriage. As late as the 1920's a super majority of the states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, "mulattos," Japanese, Chinese, Indians, "Mongolians," "Malays" or Filipinos.

    The history is clear, marriage laws are and always have been a way to control who is and isn't allowed to be married. About 50 years ago, the government got out of deciding who was and wasn't "fit" to marry. But it hasn't given up on using marriage as a means to control society. From Social Security, to inheritance laws, the government uses marriage to dictate how people "should" live.

    Marriage licensing as a means of determining, when, if, and how state should protect interpersonal relationships is increasingly unworkable. Take as simple a thing as the legal rights and responsibility people have towards children. As a society we recognized marriage doesn't determine inheritance rights, parental support or legal standing. The government through its statist laws has destroyed the traditional reasons for marriage.

    Exactly what is the purpose of marriage laws today? What interest does the government have in promoting interpersonal relationships? Is there a fundamental, basic, natural right that marriage protects? Is there a societal rationale for creating legal binding marriage laws? If society, government, and individuals are helped by marriage laws, how does/doesn't alternative marriages fit into the rationale for having marriage laws?

    The fact is that if you believe in the rule of law, and equality under the law, then any law that grants special privilege or different rights to some individuals and not others is wrong, then you believe marriage all laws are wrong. If however you believe that certain social constructs are fundamental to a working functional society and need to be protected and that certain individual freedoms should be limited for the good of society, then marriage laws may fall into that category. Because I believe that granting the government more power than is absolutely necessary is bad for society, I personally believe that the government should get out of the social engineering business, specifically sanctioning marriage, and should limit itself to arbitrating and enforcing contracts. But, if there is a rationale for government licensing of marriage, the basics and fundamentals must be considered and talked about.

    Men are pigs and if not raised right, we will, if allowed, sow our seed everywhere we can with no regard to the consequences. The simple and politically incorrect fact is that marriage exists primarily to bond the father to the family. Leftist Margaret Mead correctly noted that motherhood is a biological certainty whereas fatherhood is socially constructed. If a father is not necessary, neither is marriage. The result can be seen in the single most determining fact of whether a child; lives in, grows up in, and continues in poverty being the presence of a father. Just about every social pathology in the young can be mitigated by the presence of a father. When there is no father present, adolescents run wild, and we see the resultant societal chaos.

    All of the other ideas behind marriage are simply the satisfaction and comfort of adults. Consensual, loving and emotional relationships do not require a marriage. The practical reality is that marriage existed for one reason, to make sure that children have not just a family, but a father. Not a sire, all children have sperm donors, but marriages are primarily to create legal, moral, and social restraints on men to be fathers. In the absence of children, there is no cogent reason to form "families".

    Gays and their position on marriage have not destroyed it, they didn't even bastardize it. They are just taking advantage of the destruction of marriage as an institution by the government. Because the traditional underpinnings of marriage have been undermined, people in consensual, loving and emotional relationships outside of traditional marriage are laying claim to marriage. Gays want marriage as evidence of societal acceptance of their behavior, not the true burdens and restrictions on individuals that marriage used to create.

    The hookup culture and 50+% divorce rate, preceded gay-marriage. Since the bounds of traditional marriage, and the voluntary limits and strict restrictions prior to no-fault divorce are no longer valid, by today's standard there is no foundation to restrict any type of marriage, be it strait, gay, polygamous, or whatever. By today's standards marriage is just as easy to dissolve as any other business partnership. As such any marriage law is stupid and should not be in the government's purview.

    Only if we as a society, are willing to go back to making marriage binding, with exact legal conditions having to be met prior to granting divorce does having marriage laws of any kind make any since. Divorce is detrimental to children, yes in some cases it is better, but for the vast majority of children intact marriages are the best predictor of their success and well being. Unless both parties agree to a divorce, a person should have to show just cause in dissolving a marriage. The ability to discard a person you married, regardless of their wishes, makes marriage a meaningless institution. If children are involved, you should have to prove in a court of law real physical abuse, abandonment, adultry, etc. and that the divorce would improve the financial and emotional well being of any children. In the presence of no-fault divorce, marriage laws do not make any since.

    Conservatives and the religious right, fighting gay marriage, who are not willing to look at and examine no-fault divorce, quite simply destroys their arguments. Conservatives are unwilling to let divorce be part of the political agenda. Because no US politician is willing to touch the true third rail of politics, No-Fault Divorce, their fight to defend "traditional" marriage is false. Christian "pro-family" groups are un-willing to put any effort in reforming divorce laws. The moral authority to defend marriage as it stands today, just doesn't exist from either the right or the left. Because of its amorphous stand on marriage and divorce, the Church in America has any authority or moral standing to argue for traditional marriage.

    Traditional marriage created and makes fatherhood a serious and valuable condition. No-Fault divorce is a system for destroying fatherhood and making fathers just sires of offspring, not accountable men whom society expects to be responsible sacrificing adults. Divorce courts are largely the method for plundering fathers and making them criminals. With current marriage/divorce law what man in his right mind would get married? Without any obligation to show fault, a woman can; have a man thrown out of his house, have is wealth confiscated, lose all contact with his children, and have the majority of his future earnings confiscated. As it now stands, no rational man would enter into a legally binding agreement that allows that.

    Forming a traditional family, with parents and children, creates a situation that the government doesn't have legal or moral control. A marriage with a family that has offspring creates a zone of privacy for the purpose of raising children. Parents have traditionally had the right to determine how children are raised without government interference. This is a politically unique relationship where society allows the exercise of coercive authority over others. This is the only part of society where the state doesn't have the exclusive right to use force to elicit behavior and punish wrong behavior. Because this is the only part of society government doesn't control. Not willing to tolerate any part of society it doesn't control, government has tried, and succeeded in undermining marriage. Without parental authority, legitimized by the bonds of marriage, the government can and will dictate how children are raised. This gives the government total control over the people, right down to what is or isn't an acceptable child's lunch. If you look at communities where marriage and fathers are no longer the norm, government has replaced fathers with welfare.

    With today's current marriage laws, the only reason gays want to get married, is to force society to morally accept their life choices and behavior. It is not for legal protection, as partnerships, wills, and other legal devices can give them all the legal protection of a marriage. In fact a marriage makes one/or both less legally protected. Forget the gays attack on marriage, feminists, bar associations, psychotherapists, courts, social workers, and public schools are not about to allow the return of traditional families based on traditional marriages with limited divorce as the foundation of our society. As a result of the attack on fathers and families, they have gained too much power, money, and control.

    The basic rationale for marriage, fatherhood, is no longer valued, protected, or desired by those in power and the majority of our feminized society. The state has effectively ended traditional marriage. Smart rationale men are not about to enter into, one sided, legally binding, contracts that don't offer them any rights. The massive rise in the amount of unwed mothers and never-wed people proves this. The majority of our society no longer believes that the traditional family is the cornerstone of a working, prosperous, self governing society. We are wrong, and as seen by the roving bands of violent adolescents in our fatherless inner cities. Considering, there are no longer societal standards that shame and ostracize men who fool around without taking responsibility; not even our religious institutions will stand up for and protect fathers rights;, and we accept the fact that women need men like fish need a bicycle. What purpose in modern western culture do any marriage laws serve other than granting government control of private relationships?

    Scientists at Mayo Clinic Discover Keys to Happiness!!

    By Tom Rhodes, 6/15/2015

    If the 60’s cheesy version of the Masked Crusader’s youthful sidekick was analyzing the scientific “discovery” from Minnesota’s Mayo Clinic he would exclaim “Holy Plagiarism Batman.” It seems that scientists have “discovered” what Christianity, (and to be honest most religions) have been teaching for thousands of years.

    It’s amazing that, what some declare as the world’s finest health institution, Minnesota’s Mayo Clinic, with pomp and circumstance announced they have “cracked the code to being happy.” They laud the fact that scientists have come up with “an actual formula for happiness – a specific recipe for lifelong contentment and joy.”

    This is what the scientists and doctors at Mayo Clinic say about being happy.

    People who are happy seem to intuitively know that their happiness is the sum of their life choices, and their lives are built on the following pillars:

  • Devoting time to family and friends
  • Appreciating what they have
  • Maintaining an optimistic outlook
  • Feeling a sense of purpose
  • Living in the moment

  • Did none of these people ever go to church? There is a book that’s been around for thousands of years that teaches all these concepts. For eons it has been the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth, it’s called the Bible. I won’t go into the various verses, but much of the Bible and the thousands of sermons preached regularly for 2000 years cover each of those points. Kind of cool that scientists have finally caught up to theologians.

    This isn’t a new concept, science continues to validate ancient wisdom. The late Dr. Robert Jastrow, NASA Scientist, summed it up wonderfully saying, “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

    Next thing you know scientists will “discover” that limited government, with the rule of law, and letting people to rule themselves, leads to more prosperity for more people.

    Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own (Matthew 6:34).

    Friday, June 12, 2015

    Actions of the Obama admin. prove the TPP is Bad for America.

    By Tom Rhodes, 6/12/2015

    Have you read about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)? This is major trade legislation that has something so rotten in it that it’s secret until it’s passed. The GOP is helping Obama pass the TPP. Most voting for it admit they've never read it. The text with full details of TPP are kept in a special guarded room. Why?

    There is only one possible answer. There must be something buried in in the details that is very, very, very bad. They know if We the People knew what was in it, the outcry to our elected representatives would kill it.

    What is in the TPP that is so rotten, that our elected representatives must sign an agreement not to tell us or even hint at what the trade agreement contains, before they are allowed to read the proposed trade agreement?

    Whatever evil anti-American detail or details that exist in the Trans Pacific Partnership that is so terrible that We the People must be kept in the dark until it is a fait accompli. Our forefathers warned us and did not trust the government, even the one they created. Our government has proven to be unfaithful and liars. In as much as the government refuses to make a huge trade agreement public, we should urge all our elected representatives to vote against it. The TPP is a prime example of Obama’s promise to have “The most transparent administration in history.” That promise coupled with contradictory forced secrecy of the TPP are a clear indicator that the TPP is bad for America.