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

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Matt’s Torturous Path

by Pete Bloome, 4/3/2017

On 24 March, Congressman Matt Gaetz told a Shark Tank interviewer “I agree with the President we ought to have every option on the table when it comes to advanced interrogation techniques.” In plain English, advanced interrogation means torture. He thinks torture should be a legal tool of the United States used by the President. That is a self-destructive mistake for the country.

I’m sure Matt doesn’t see it that way. With the war on terror, torture has gained some undeserved popularity. He knows this topic hits an emotional hot button with a lot of folks. Every radical Islamic terrorist attack somewhere stokes a common desire to fight fire with fire. TV shows have gritty public servants thrashing bad guys to within an inch of their lives to find the kidnapped girl. The scariest story line of all is the maniac with an atom bomb who won’t tell people where it is, and it has to be beaten out of him. People want simple solutions, and Matt Gaetz gives it to them. Of course, he doesn’t mention the horrendous price we pay for doing so.

Legalized torture is dangerous to that precious thing known as the American way of life. With the word out that we will use torture, our enemies will be less likely to give themselves up. That will lead to the unnecessary death of our soldiers. It sets the stage for revenge attacks in a never ending cycle of retaliation. It removes any semblance of moral superiority from our legal or military actions. It turns its back on hundreds of years of the progress of civilization starting with the Crucifixion, and violates reams of existing law. It doesn’t recognize individual rights, only the force of the State over a person. It caters to mob rule. The innocent can suffer as readily as the guilty. In addition, it doesn’t work. When Secretary of Defense Mattis stated that “beer and cigarettes” were better than enhanced interrogation techniques, he wasn’t just speaking morally. The Air Force taught me a person under torture will say anything, do anything, to stop it. John McCain himself made all sorts of bogus admissions to crimes on North Vietnamese Radio under torture. These kinds of limitations make the whole idea unreliable in the extreme.

Legalized torture would be like introducing cancer into our Republic. It causes physical and mental lasting harm, with no remedy, to people who could be innocent. It trashes due process. It won’t even work, but it is popular. And to think Matt wants to give such power to the President, a separate and supposedly equal branch of the government. You have to ask yourself, what do we become if we do embrace torture and its threat to liberty? H.L. Mencken wrote to every problem there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong. Legalized torture is that kind of solution.

Matt Gaetz is an educated man, lawyer, and officer of the court, but he chose political expediency over representation, tough words over a clear vision, and dangerously advocating an ever increasing Federal power to impose its might over the individual. His cynicism in supporting such a policy is both overwhelming and heartbreaking at the same time. The First District is chock full of people who are at the tip of the military spear. It makes me wonder if he ever bothered talking to them at all.

The lawyers I’ve known say it used to be considered better to let a guilty man go free than let an innocent man suffer under the law.

As a Congressman, Matt Gaetz has chosen a new path, and it ain’t pretty.

Pete Blome is Chair of the Northwest Florida Libertarian Party and a retired military officer

Friday, March 24, 2017

Diversity: Where Libertarianism Goes to Die

by Tom Rhodes, 3/27/2017

I read this at Voxday today, “Libertarianism and pure classical liberal economics are elegant and seductive systems; but they did not stand up to the test of empirical evidence.” That sums up the failure of libertarianism.

Libertarianism works for a people willing to self-govern who share a culture, with common values. Libertarianism like our constitution is a reflection of a specific culture with a specific set of values. Any society that embraces libertarianism but does not have a shared culture by an overwhelming majority will fall apart and cease to function as a cohesive society.

Our forefathers were clear, and our constitution based on libertarian(classical liberal) ideas, functioned and created a society where more people prospered than any other in the history of the world. Until 1965 the USA protected it’s cultural heritage, it did so by not accepting large numbers of people from dissimilar cultures and worked at having those cultures assimilate and adopt American culture. The root of that culture is from Northern Europe primarily the English with some Dutch and German. There is/was one unifying cultural root of those Northern European Cultures - Protestant Christianity.

Significant numbers of most other cultures cannot be readily absorbed, and will cause strife and separation and disharmony in a society if allowed to immigrate in large numbers. Because Catholicism is closely related to Protestantism small but significant amounts of immigrants from Catholic cultures have be absorbed in the USA.

History is clear, any society is invaded by force or allows invasion of large numbers of people from other cultures dies. Opening our doors to the third world as resulted not in those immigrants assimilating and becoming Americans. Rather than diversity being uniting and uplifting phenomenon, it has resulted in strife, and the breakdown of our culture. Such invasion inevitably leads to war. Be it the Hispanics and Blacks in Compton, American colonists and Native Americans in the USA, the Moors and Christians in Spain, or the Mongols and where ever they moved, cultures don’t survive large numbers of a different culture invading. The tactic of moving in, building up a significant but culturally separate population, then taking over and eliminating the native culture is how both the Quran and history showed as the method for Islam to expand. The clash of cultures results in War. The mime “Diversity + Proximity = War” is proven by history. Right now there appears to be one exception, but it isn’t over and may yet come to war, that is Brexit. England may be able to salvage it’s culture and remain England without war, but the jury is still out.

History has shown that man is tribal and does not generally trust, tolerate, and live well with other tribes. God separated man into various tribes at Babul. Weather you believe this is an allegory to the evolutionary divergence of man, or to explain tribalism, or the literal truth, is irrelevant. Unless artificially forced, man will choose to live with people of his tribe. You have to be blind not to see that people live and mingle in groups of others who are like them. Almost every big city in the USA has a “China Town” or “Little Italy” within its borders. When I was a kid, the kid’s from our block were a distinct group from those “others” who didn’t live on our block. This is not forced it is natural and part of our evolutionary design. Gated communities exist because people don’t want to live in close proximity to “others.”

One group, tribe, culture, race, whatever is neither superior or inferior to another. They however are not the same. Being different is neither bad nor good it is just different. Utopian thinking libertarians, liberals, conservatives, socialists or whoever, that believe “if everybody would just blah blah blah, then everything would be great and everybody would be happy” are all wrong. Be it a society without government where everybody respected and valued the property of others or a society where government owned and controlled all property with no individual having ownership and all receive a share of the total, or whatever, they are all utopian ideas that history has shown will not work.

What history shows is that pure libertarianism, or anarchy, or socialism, or capitalism, or communism, or Islam, or any other “system” of governance don’t work for all people everywhere. The reason is clear, not every person is the same, not all tribes are the same, not all cultures are the same, and what one person or group values is not the same as what the other group values. History is clear when one group tries to force or otherwise condemns the values of another group, either the other group surrenders and allows its culture to die or they fight.

The people of many cultures say stuff like, “My culture will not surrender to yours, and will fight to the death rather than abandon our values and beliefs.” In the USA that is shortened to “Live Free or Die” or “Give me Liberty or Give me Death,” but it would just as easily be believed if said from a Japanese samurai; all variations on a theme of “Death before Dishonor.” So when cultural values clash, the result will be WAR! Islam is great in recognizing and capitalizing on this historic human trait that exists in all cultures, an evolutionary means of protecting culture. Islam clearly and boldly claims, you will surrender to Islam, or we will fight to the death. Other cultures will do the same, they cannot and never will live peacefully together. Ignoring this human trait that exists in every culture will lead to nothing but sorrow and violence. Keeping cultures separate is civilized, to do otherwise is to invite barbarism.

There is not, nor ever will be, one set of values and customs that everybody agrees. God separated the people, when man tries to undo what God did it never works out for the betterment of Man. When God separated men and created the different languages, it wasn’t only other language that men couldn’t understand, the very thinking and values of those “others” are so foreign that different tribes cannot understand (hence appreciate) the values of other tribes. The Alt-Right has a bull’s-eye on this point. All cultures have the right to protect themselves and keep other cultures from taking them over. As such, all cultures have the right to keep other cultures out, and institute a government, laying their government’s foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

When looking at languages, how do you reconcile people who don’t have a different word in their language to differentiate earning and winning. They equate earning money through hard work as the same as winning the lottery. You have money weather you earn it or win it is not relevant. The idea that actions, work to earn, or gambling, are the same when it comes to how you gain property. Who has more, is luck based, not based on the consequences of actions. This means that in some cultures, the idea that you must work to earn riches just doesn’t compute. You gain wealth because of who you are, who you know, and how lucky you are, what you do doesn’t relate to what you have. In the USA, what you do, is more important, than who you are. That is almost unique to American culture, where what your dad did or who he was is kind of irrelevant, a place where a black kid out of Chicago can be elected president one election cycle after an industrial robber baron’s family was president. A Chinese labor immigrant’s kids will never be president in Saudi Arabia, it’s just not culturally possible.

If a people choose they may institute a theocracy that they think will likely provide for their safety and happiness, or a commune, or a republic, or a democracy, or a King, or a Pope, or whatever. But no culture has the right to institute a government on another and all cultures have the right to protect themselves. The nation state appears to be the best method man has devised to divide diverse cultures avoid wars, and provide the means in which those societies can institute governments on principles that seems each separate and distinct society can best prosper. Forced unification, as seen last century by the USSR, fails and cannot be sustained.

When our founding fathers formed the USA, declaring our independence they summed up the idea that all not all cultures can get along and stay as one unified group of mankind. They declared that all men (meaning mankind and each culture) were created equally, but recognized they are different. As such declared “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 to 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.”

The forced unification in Iraq of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites has resulted in a constant war, some arbitrary outside group like the UN cannot force divergent cultures to live under one roof and not war. It has never happened and will never happen.

The EU is falling apart, the English are not the French who are not the Germans, who are not the Swiss or Dutch. The English have shown that they cannot and will not tolerate “others” dictating to them how they must live, Brexit is the best we can hope for, as English left the EU without violence. Great Britain has had to war to maintain unity because the Scotts, Irish, Welsh, and Brits, although nominally unified in being a Christian nation, as separate cultures have a lot of trouble staying together, much less staying bound to EU. The history of Great Britain is one of trying to force different cultures to unify and those different cultures warring to maintain their independence.

The USA will fall apart, the states used to have a set of shared values and culture, that is no longer true, the separation of the USA into smaller nation states is as inevitable as the breakup of the USSR. Hopefully we won’t repeat our past as when Americans war against each other the losses and devastation are more massive than any other warring tribes in history. If the USA has another civil war, it will end when one or the other group will be destroyed, ask the native Americans when we’ll stop, and how much of their culture and way of life can be maintained. The civil war resulted in the utter destruction of the South, it’s no longer the same, there is some “southern” culture but the facts are clear the Union invaded and forced cultural and societal change on the South in the War Between the States, some states still aren’t allowed to create their own voting laws.

If you believe “we can all get along” you’re an idiot. We can’t, never have, never will. Each culture should for the betterment of their own people learn to live with themselves, and nurture and institute what form of 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.

Globalism and one-worlders ideas have in the past, are now, and will always lead to war. Libertarianism is not functional except for a group of people who share the same values and culture. As a system it has proven to work for such a group whose values and culture are rooted in Protestant Christianity, but libertarianism is not a functional political system on a world wide scale where the same values and traditions of Christianity are not shared.

Diversity and libertarian ideas don’t work together. If they did the LP would be the strongest political party in the USA. The libertarian party theoretically embraces diversity, but it cannot and does not attract a diverse cross section of the population. The LP is made up of protestant white males of northern European heritage, and although not technically Christian, as a group and philosophy libertarians embrace the culture of the “protestant work ethic” a product of Reformation Theology. At its heart, libertarianism is the political manifestation of a subset of Protestantism, Calvinism. Cultures not of northern European origin, reject Protestantism, and disdain Calvinism and thus don’t accept libertarianism. The USA started changing at the beginning of the 20th century with a large influx of Catholics (Irish and Italian), this changed the culture and diluted the Calvinist influence. As such even though the LP, which as a political philosophy is clearly non-racist, and embraces acceptance of diverse people and ideas in principle, the LP is rejected by most of the USA.

The Libertarian Party (LP) rejected the Christian roots to libertarianism, and is the party is a combination of the libertine with Calvinism which makes the party inherently illogical and unacceptable to most people. The historic fact that libertarianism, allowing people liberty to succeed or fail and do what they want so long as they don’t harm others, resulted in the most prosperous society for more people doesn’t carry much weight. The reason is cultural. The idea that people are not duty bound, nor should they be forced to support others who fuck up is not acceptable to most other cultures, and as such libertarianism is rejected by most people.

Diversity is Strength is a lie. There is strength in unity not diversity. The USA is a prime example, since 1965 when we abandoned protection of our culture and unity as people and embraced diversity, the USA’s strength politically, economically, educationally, has diminished. Libertarianism worked for a while for a culturally unified Protestant population. On a larger world-wide scale it is and will remain a failure. Libertarianism will only function for a culture that is willing to protect itself. Libertarians for open borders, who embrace diversity, and reject the idea that a culture has the right to protect itself from others is virtual suicide. The 16 points of the Alt-right are currently the most advance and practical reality based political ideology where libertarianism can function. Read what Alt-Right says, not how they make you feel, the Alt-Right is coming together of great philosophy with realism and human nature. You can ignore the Alt-Right, but like ignoring the ideas of radical Islamists, the reality of what they represent will change your life and eventually world view.

Monday, January 23, 2017

How to Destroy Two Lives with One Choice

by Tom Rhodes, 1/23/2017

Some things are gray, meaning they exist on some continuum without clear and distinct boundaries, good and bad, short to tall, light to heavy, dark to bright. Other things are distinctly binary and clear, top and bottom, on or off, yes or no, alive or dead.

To determine if a life is human is simple, if that life has human DNA, it is a human being. The life stages of a human being are from fertilized egg, to embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, geriatric, and finally death. This is not controversial science, it is the same for all mammals.

To determine if something is alive or dead, scientifically when talking about cellular life it's simple, if it takes in food, eliminates waste, respirates, and cells are dividing, it's alive not dead. Until politics forced the change the definition of life so abortion could be rationalized, that was how cellular life was defined. Even more simply, The Dead Don't Grow.

Abortion kills a living human, PERIOD!

The sick and evil part is that in almost all cases, abortion is the killing of a living human simply because the mere existence of that human is inconvenient.

You can make up all the excuses you want, you are just rationalizing the killing of one human whose mere existence is inconvenient another. The new life being killed did nothing, is totally innocent, and only exists, because of the actions of others. Rationalizing the killing of an innocent, who is incapable of initiating actions against another, is immoral, wrong, and evil.

Knowing how detrimental abortion is to women, and knowing that pregnancy compromises their feelings, memory, and thinking, why do we allow pregnant women to choose to kill another human, because they "feel" they be better off, if that other human was dead? The men who would coerce a pregnant woman to make such a choice, don't have the excuse of being pregnant, and are just selfish and self-centered and should be held more culpable.

Pregnant women are emotionally and mentally compromised, the chemistry involved with pregnancy dramatically affects their brains. This has been observed for countless generations and is so well documented as to be uncontroversial.

"There is 15 to 40 times more progesterone and estrogen marinating the brain during pregnancy," Louann Brizendine, MD, director of the Women's Mood and Hormone Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, says. "And these hormones affect all kinds of neurons in the brain." We don't fully understand all the effects of pregnancy on the brain. Glynn and her colleague Curt A. Sandman, of University of the California Irvine, are doing something about that. Their review of the literature in Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal published by the Association for Psychological Science, discusses the theories and findings that are starting to fill what Glynn calls "a significant gap in our understanding of this critical stage of most women's lives." At no other time in a woman's life does she experience such massive hormonal fluctuations as during pregnancy. Dr. Glynn is clear saying, "There may be a cost" of these reproduction-related cognitive and emotional changes.

Letting women whose brains are influenced by hormones to such an extent that they sometimes cannot control their emotions, make life and death decisions for another person is criminal. The woman making the choice is not criminal, rather society is criminally negligent, for allowing a person whose emotions are known to be compromised due to the chemical imbalances associated with pregnancy make such decisions.

This is not to say that most women are not and cannot be rational during pregnancy, but anybody who's been around a pregnant woman KNOWS that their emotions and thinking are affected by the pregnancy. Letting a person who has a temporary condition known to compromise their thinking make life and death decisions is wrong. We don't let people who are temporarily drunk, choose to drive. We even hold bartenders culpable for allowing compromised people to drive. Yet we allow women known to be temporarily mentally compromised, choose to kill another human.

In a 2010 study, published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry found that women who underwent an abortion had a 98 percent increased risk for any mental health disorders compared to women who did not have an abortion.

The Study, "Aborted Women - Silent No More" (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987), describes a case of woman who beat her three year old son to death shortly after an abortion which triggered a "psychotic episode" of grief, guilt, and misplaced anger. The science and research are clear with study after study showing that without doubt that abortion is linked with increased depression, violent behavior, alcohol and drug abuse, replacement pregnancies, and reduced maternal bonding with children born subsequently. These factors are closely associated with child abuse and would appear to confirm individual clinical assessments linking post-abortion trauma with subsequent child abuse.

The vast majority of women who abort regret doing so later in life. The guilt and emotional turmoil of realizing that she choseto kill her own baby, destroys and gnaws at the psyche of a woman her entire life.

We know abortion kills a human being. We know that abortion is detrimental to women both physically and mentally. We know that pregnancy compromises a woman's feelings, memory, and thinking. Knowing all this, why would a rational civilized society allow pregnant women to choose to destroy two lives.

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Embracing Barbarism: The Death of a Nation

By Tom Rhodes, 12/28/2016

Why should Modern Western Civilized Societies take barbarians, who don't value civilization, nor want to become civilized, who want what civilization produces, but reject what Modern Western Civilized Societies require? Why should barbarians be allowed to reap the benefits of Modern Western Civilized Societies , without conforming to the norms of that society?

Societies that don't value treat all people as equal in their laws and customs are not civilized. Modern Western Civilized Societies are based on the idea that all men are created in God's image, therefore by the basis of being an image bearer of God should be treated equally under the law, and be allowed all the same rights as any other person, regardless of race, class, sex, etc. etc. etc.

The result of not being willing to stand up against barbarian invasion is plainly evident in Europe. Violent crime, especially rape, is rising as the barbarians who’ve been allowed to enter unfettered, take what they want and not only refuse to conform to the norms of Modern Western Civilized Society, but demand that society conform to their barbarism.

Embracing barbarism, hedonism, and rejecting our Christian heritage, is bad enough. On a global scale this rejection and model for society is a direct way to the degradation and primitivization of culture. This has led to a demographic and moral crisis in the West.

Even Vladimir Putin has recognized, and observed this fact. In a recent speech he stated;
Without the moral values that are rooted in Christianity and other world religions, without rules and moral values which have formed, and been developed, over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity and become brutes. And we think it is right and natural to defend and preserve these Christian moral values.

One has to respect the right of every minority to self-determination, but at the same time there cannot and must not be any doubt about the rights of the majority.

“At the same time as this process plays out at a national level in the West, we observe on an international level the attempts to create a unipolar, unified model of the world, to relativise and remove institutions of international rights and national sovereignty. In such a unipolar, unified world there is no place for sovereign states. Such a world needs merely vassals.

From a historical perspective, such a unipolar world would mean the surrender of one's own identity and of God-created diversity.

It is sad indeed when Vladimir Putin better articulates the value of diversity, sovereignty, and liberty, than our own democratically elected leaders in the west. Modern Western Civilized Societies refusing to stand up and protect the norms of their culture, are doomed to lose their culture.

“If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.” ~ Thomas Sowell

John Stuart Mill is often quoted by Libertarians. Mill's philosophical treatise, On Liberty, makes a very strong case for the radical permission of individuality. The problem is that libertarians skip and ignore other parts of that same treatise where he also makes strong claims for restrictions on barbarians. Even this permission of individuality had legal limits. In the first chapter of On Liberty, Mill recognized that barbaric peoples were to be placed under great restriction. Recognizing that radical liberty entrusted to barbarians is disastrous.

If Modern Western Civilized Societies are to confront the barbarian, even supposing that the civilization is in theory a liberal democratic republic, certain aspects of individuality must be condemned according to that nation's identity, with the majority acting for the whole. Whether these aspects are challenged by the state or by social means is dependent upon the circumstances, but reason and order demand that they cannot simply go unchallenged.

if America, as a Modern Western Civilized Society, is not wise nor strong enough to return to the God of her fathers, or to the Law which gave her liberty, then as her borders become meaningless, from both within and without those borders, will come forces she cannot oppose. They will come with smiling faces and murderous intents - to conquer not with the sword, but instead by pressing upon the hollow shell of a once civilized nation. The veneer that is our post-modern culture unsustained by its barbaric tenants, will give way. Then, like with Europe, our cities raped and pillaged and America's daughters will be at the mercy of the barbarian.

Let’s not forget that John Stewart Mills in his treatise, On Liberty, also said:

"A civilization that can thus succumb to its vanquished enemy [barbarism] must first have become so degenerate, that neither its appointed priests and teachers, nor anybody else, has the capacity, or will take the trouble, to stand up for it. If this be so, the sooner such a civilization receives notice to quit, the better. It can only go on from bad to worse, until destroyed and regenerated (like the Western Empire) by energetic barbarians."

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Citizens United is a Red Herring

By Tom Rhodes 12/20/2016

This Election proved one thing. Citizens United is a Red Herring. Corporate money in politics has little or no effect. Big Oil backed Clinton, not Trump. The Stock Market backed Clinton, not Trump.

Hillary spent double what Trump did on the election. That means with ½ the money Trump got 1/3 more electoral votes. Money doesn’t matter, spending big money on TV is a waste of money. Things have changed. A virtually free tweet is worth more than a 30 second spot on ABC, NBC, and CBS during prime time combined. People can and do fast forward and skip the commercials. Things have changed and limits on spending money on “electioneering” are clearly wasted and restrictive for no benefit.


YouTube Twitter, Facebook, blogs, GAB, etc. are all more effective today than, old-line network audiences. A good tweet is more effective than $Millions on TV. TV audiences are far smaller technology allows people to skip TV ads altogether. The Democrats' obsession with the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which allowed corporate political communications, is utterly beside the point. The fact is major corporations don't take partisan sides. If they do public relations departments always pick the PC choice.

The people are so tired of being told what they can and can’t say, not being politically correct and saying what you feel can and will win votes over carefully crafted politically correct pablum. Hillary wasted a lot of dollars pointing out that Trump is a man, and in private talks like other men. Yawn, nobody cared.

Big money on polling with polls carefully crafted to shape a message also proved to be another waste of money. The polls were wrong and most of the country won’t even participate in what they know are polls rigged by big money.

The Democrats continued whining about big money in politics is just a Red Herring designed to keep people distracted form their desire to control everybody from cradle to grave and not have any opposing ideas heard or shared. That’s why they want to control the news, and label as “fake” anything they don’t think you should know or hear about. They are up in arms about Russia, but have yet to prove anything they exposed is false. Why exactly wont’ the FBI tell congress the details of how they came to change their mind and support the CIA’s claim that Russia hacked the US elections. The same CIA who claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, thought waterboarding was OK, etc.

From the US Presidential Election to the Hugo Awards, the events of 2016 proved that Freedom of Speech and the Press are more powerful than big money. Government restrictions only and always support what big money wants. So why does big money want to restrict small money speech? This election proved Big Money no longer works and was proof that liberty and protecting the rights of all people to equally, provides the best way for more people to be heard and ideas to be shared.

Friday, July 8, 2016

Civil War is Here

By Tom Rhodes, 7/8/2016

Our government has just confirmed that we are no longer a nation of laws. Once we were a "nation of the people, by the people and for the people." Today we are a “nation of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite.”

It took less than a week for the people to respond. Not only seeing Clinton's get away with ignoring the law, but coupled with another example of the repeated problem of the police shooting innocent people and not being held accountable was demonstrated.

The results were seen in Dallas, 11 police shot, 5 dead. The people will not tolerate the continued different set of rules for the elite and their minions, than the ones they must follow or be killed.

I wrote about this coming for the past few years
(here’s one). Retaliation for the elite and their minions abandoning the rule of law was inevitable.

President Obama is aghast that the people would respond this way. Like any despot, the idea that people would retaliate against the government is inconceivable. Saying from Warsaw, “There’s no possible justification for these kinds of attacks or any attack on law enforcement.” When the elites minions (cops) can and do get away with murder routinely the outcome in a free society is clear. When the rule of law no longer applies, and there is no justice through the courts, the people are left with no recourse. When law enforcement can routinely shoot unarmed people with no accountability, they not only justify, but invite attack on law enforcement.

Obama made it clear today, that the idea that the people have powerful weapons that they can use to resist the minions of the elite is the problem. Clearly the reason for the Second Amendment was so that the people, even urban blacks, would have the means to combat a tyrannical unaccountable government.

This week when the government said, Yes, Hillary broke the law, but we’re going to let her get away with it. They clearly said, the laws are to control the little people and don’t apply to your betters. Because police (minions of the elite) can and do get away with murder, and our government has declared that the elite and their minions are exempt from the law. After such a clear declaration of oligarchic despotism, violent retaliation and rebellion is all that is left.

The police created the climate by constantly and systematically protecting their own. Every cop who has seen another officer abuse the rights of a citizen, and kept their mouth shut rather than cross the thin blue line, is an accomplice not a good cop. Everyone should be held accountable for their mistakes, even cops. Especially when it costs someone their life.

The problem isn’t people having guns, it is the actions of the elites minions (cops). If we don't fix the general problem of cops literally getting away with murder, people will be sniping them all over. It is obviously a systemic problem; everyone knows nothing is going to happen to a cop who kills someone. You can’t keep shooting little girls sleeping on their couch(Aiyana Jones), and claiming you were scared as an excuse, and expect the people to tolerate it.

Last year hundreds of unarmed people were killed by the police, over 1000 people in all, but if the dead body had a pocket knife, they were classified as “armed.” The people may be stupid, but not that stupid, and can easily recognize when for every cop shot there are 30 people shot, and see the disparity noting the fact of police being trained to lie, and not notice that the Evil Minions of the Elite (cops) obfuscate, and pretend that they are in danger when they are not.

Why should the people trust the police when the law says it’s legal for cops to lie to suspects and the people, but a crime for the people to lie to cops?

As long as the minions of the elite maintain their quasi-military attitude, their us vs them mentality, and their legal unaccountability, they will increasingly find themselves at war against the American people. It is a war they cannot win.

The shooting of 11 minions of the elite in Dallas is not remotely surprising. What is surprising is the sheer number of people who won’t sympathize with the Dallas police and their families. The police consider themselves above the law, but they are not beyond the reach of an justly outraged public.

Dallas is an unnecessary tragedy. The specific officers that were shot and killed, in all likelihood did nothing to deserve the violence inflicted upon them. The way for them to avoid future attacks is to stop pretending that being scared is sufficient reason to shoot a member of the public, to erase the thin blue line and hold their fellow officers accountable.

No sane person would celebrate the current situation, it has been predicted, but the repeated calls to hold the police and our government accountable have gone unheeded. When the FBI boldly proclaims that yes the elite did break the law, but we won’t prosecute, and cops routinely (hundreds of times a year) shoot the unarmed public without accountability, it clearly demonstrates to the people that the rule of law is dead, and the people cannot expect justice from the government. The people can, and will, seek justice through other means when the government refuses to enforce the rule of law.

Buckle up people, civil war is here, and things are going to get worse before it gets better.

Monday, July 4, 2016

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



Thursday, June 30, 2016

Magic Dirt Theory

By Tom Rhodes, 6/30/2016

The dirt in the USA is not magical. Duh!!! By a person changing their geographic location to the USA the dirt under their feet won’t magically change that person into an American. Even if born in the USA, if their parents don’t embrace modern western civilization and the culture of America, that child won’t magically become American. The

There are certain cultural beliefs that simply do not mix in the West. If an American immigrant from Afghanistan believes in Sharia law (abusing women and killing gays for who they are - as an example) those cultural beliefs will never mix in our country. If we allow that individual to immigrate to our nation, they will be unassimilated, unsuccessful and will develop a great deal of resentment or even rage.

Is it unfair to consider if a potential immigrant plans on adopting it’s new countries culture or keep their old culture and work at changing the culture of their new geographic location to match their own?

If we look at places in the world where large numbers of Muslims have migrated, do those Muslims adopt their much if any new locations local culture, or do they maintain the culture from where they came and expect the locals to accept and/or adopt the foreign culture of the new immigrants?

The FACTS are clear but not politically correct. When large numbers of Muslims migrate to a new geographic location, they do not adopt the local culture, but keep their old culture and insist on it becoming the new culture. There is no evidence that the dirt under their feet magically transforms them into the local culture.

Countless dollars have been spent trying to create a predictor of a person becoming a terrorist. All the money and research spent is spent on the condition that the answer not point to Islam. The New York Times reported earlier this year:

"What turns people toward violence -- and whether they can be steered away from it -- are questions that have bedeviled governments around the world for generations. Those questions have taken on fresh urgency with the rise of the Islamic State and the string of attacks in Europe and the United States. Despite millions of dollars of government-sponsored research, and a much-publicized White House pledge to find answers, there is still nothing close to a consensus on why someone becomes a terrorist."

The most common trait of terrorists in the world today is that they are Muslim. That common trait is not allowed to be noted. The British MI5 undertook its own highly sophisticated study, after the July 7, 2005, London subway bombing by Muslim terrorists that killed 52 people. The study determined that terrorists are a very diverse group, and worshipped at a variety of different mosques. The only predictive factor MI5 found was being Muslim.

Muslim leaders have declared a war on western civilization, they openly state their goal is to end the decadence that is modern western civilization. We know from 8 to 15% of Muslims hold radical beliefs and will commit violence in the name of Islam if given the opportunity. We know fairly accurately that if we admit 1 Million Muslims into the country about 80,000 will hold radical beliefs and if given the opportunity will commit acts of violence. Just FACTS, not politically correct but true none the less. From rape to mass murder they will commit violence against infidels. We only need to look at Europe to see it. The government is telling it’s citizens if they don’t want to be raped or assaulted don’t go where the Muslims live. The amount of violent crime by Muslims against local cultures is massive wherever large numbers of Muslims Migrate. PERIOD!

Omar Mateen, was born in the USA to Afghan parents, who upon moving to the USA were not affected by our magical dirt and did everything they could to remain Afghan, and raise their sun as an Afghan Muslim. The US State Department led Overseas Security Advisory Council report reads that “martyrdom during the month of Ramadan may hold a special allure to some.” It noted that during Ramadan there is a “persistent threat of (ISIS) attacks, both inspired and directed.” The fact is Omar Mateen is a Radical Islamic Democrat, who during the month of Ramadan carried out the most effective Islamic Terrorist Act on US soil. He was not an American, the magic dirt of the USA did not make him one.

Leftists and political elite have only made themselves look like controlling manipulative liars, trying to blame guns in America as the root cause, when all the evidence clearly points to Islamic Terrorism. Only a blind idiot would think anything but Radical Islam is the cause of the 6/12 Orlando massacre. Only an idiot, or a manipulative liar, would declare Mateen as an American. The magic dirt he was born on does not make him an American. He overtly rejected everything, including the culture, that makes a person American. An African Lion (Panthera leo) born in an American zoo doesn't magically become an American lion (Puma concolor).

The dirt under the feet of the USA is not magical, it does not and will not change Muslims into Americans. Dumping a million Muslim immigrants on the country every year, some percentage of whom we know will commit mass murder, is insane. It will result in the same violent rape, assault, and mass murder that has accompanied every migration of Muslims in history.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Why are the Govt and MSM lying to us?

WHY - Are both the MSM and Govt trying to cover up 6/12 as an Islamic Terrorist Act?

Some facts are clear, enough facts are know so we can say that the Orlando 6/12 massacre meets all the criteria to be identified as an Act of Islamic Terrorism.

The mass murderer was a non-state actor (he was not acting on behalf of any government), he explicitly identified the United States government’s intrusions into the Islamic world as his reason for murdering en masse. He disclosed his motive: He wanted to affect changes in government policy. The mass murderer indiscriminately slaughtered non-combatant civilians in the private sector as the means by which he sought to retaliate against and to change American policy. This clearly meets all the requirements to identify 6/12 as terrorism.

The following are also known facts: The terrorist followed jihadi protocol and informed the police that he pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State (ISIS) and the terrorist shouted praises to Allah as he shed the blood of civilians. This clearly meets all the requirements to identify the act of terrorism on 6/12 as an Islamic Terrorist act.

The readily available facts are clearly know. Why is our government trying to make 6/12 about guns, homophobia, or America's fault? Why is the MSM supporting the government in making 6/12 something other than the largest Islamist Terrorist Attack on US soil since 9/11???

When the government publicly states it will edit the 911 tapes so that it doesn't point to Islamic Terrorism, says they don't know the motives, despite the clear declaration of motives by the terrorist, we have a problem. The MSM should have been screaming to get the truth, but it was pressure from everyday citizens and the new media of the Internet that forced the government to release the 911 tapes which clearly showed that 6/12 was an Islamic Terrorist Attack.

Guns, homophobia, etc. are all red herrings. 6/12 was Islamic Terrorism. Refusing to call it that, doesn't make it anything else. Refusing to recognize that a sizeable portion of the Islamic world has publicly declared war on the West, and specifically the USA, doesn't mean we are any less at war. It takes 2 sides o fight, but it only takes one side to declare and wage war. Choose not to fight or defend yourself, and you will lose the war.

Why are the Govt and MSM lying to us?

WHY - Are both the MSM and Govt trying to cover up 6/12 as an Islamic Terrorist Act?

Some facts are clear, enough facts are know so we can say that the Orlando 6/12 massacre meets all the criteria to be identified as an Act of Islamic Terrorism.

The mass murderer was a non-state actor (he was not acting on behalf of any government), he explicitly identified the United States government’s intrusions into the Islamic world as his reason for murdering en masse. He disclosed his motive: He wanted to affect changes in government policy. The mass murderer indiscriminately slaughtered non-combatant civilians in the private sector as the means by which he sought to retaliate against and to change American policy. This clearly meets all the requirements to identify 6/12 as terrorism.

The following are also known facts: The terrorist followed jihadi protocol and informed the police that he pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State (ISIS) and the terrorist shouted praises to Allah as he shed the blood of civilians. This clearly meets all the requirements to identify the act of terrorism on 6/12 as an Islamic Terrorist act.

The readily available facts are clearly know. Why is our government trying to make 6/12 about guns, homophobia, or America's fault? Why is the MSM supporting the government in making 6/12 something other than the largest Islamist Terrorist Attack on US soil since 9/11???

When the government publicly states it will edit the 911 tapes so that it doesn't point to Islamic Terrorism, says they don't know the motives, despite the clear declaration of motives by the terrorist, we have a problem. The MSM should have been screaming to get the truth, but it was pressure from everyday citizens and the new media of the Internet that forced the government to release the 911 tapes which clearly showed that 6/12 was an Islamic Terrorist Attack.

Guns, homophobia, etc. are all red herrings. 6/12 was Islamic Terrorism. Refusing to call it that, doesn't make it anything else. Refusing to recognize that a sizeable portion of the Islamic world has publicly declared war on the West, and specifically the USA, doesn't mean we are any less at war. It takes 2 sides o fight, but it only takes one side to declare and wage war. Choose not to fight or defend yourself, and you will lose the war.